HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

Annual Report 2018–19 HC 2469 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952.

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 9 July 2019.

HC 2469 © Crown Copyright 2019 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at: www.gov.uk/official-documents and www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-5286-1459-7

CCS0619502094 07/19

Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by CDS on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. CONTENTS

Who we are and what we do 4 1 Introduction By the Chief Inspector of Prisons 6 2 The year in brief 16 3 Men in prison 20 Prisons have become less safe for some 22 Poor living conditions for many prisoners 27 Too much time in cell, too little activity outside 33 Progress on rehabilitation and release planning but problems 39 remain 4 Women in prison 46 5 Children in custody 52 6 Immigration detention 62 7 Police custody 68 8 Court custody 76 9 The Inspectorate in 2018–19 80 10 Appendices 86 1 Inspection reports published 2018–19 87 2 Healthy prison and establishment assessments 2018–19 89 3 Recommendations accepted in 2018–19 91 4 Recommendations achieved in 2018–19 94 5 Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis 97 6 Prisoner survey responses: men and women 116 WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO

Our purpose Services (HMICFRS), Care Quality Commission To ensure independent inspection of places of (CQC), HM Inspectorate of Probation and the General detention, report on conditions and treatment, and Pharmaceutical Council, appropriate to the type and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the location of the establishment. public. OPCAT and the National Preventive Mechanism All inspections carried out by HM Inspectorate of Our values Prisons (HMI Prisons) contribute to the UK’s response ¡¡ Independence, impartiality and integrity are the to its international obligations under the Optional foundations of our work. Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and ¡¡ The experience of the detainee is at the heart of our other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or inspections. Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT requires that all places ¡¡ Respect for human rights underpins our of detention are visited regularly by independent expectations. bodies – known as the National Preventive Mechanism ¡¡ We embrace diversity and are committed to (NPM) – which monitor the treatment of and pursuing equality of outcomes for all. conditions for detainees. HMI Prisons is one of several ¡¡ We believe in the capacity of both individuals and bodies making up the NPM in the UK and houses the organisations to change and improve, and that we NPM Secretariat, which coordinates the NPM’s joint have a part to play in initiating and encouraging activities. change. Our approach Our remit HMI Prisons’ inspections are carried out against Our remit is primarily set out in section 5A of the published inspection criteria known as Expectations. Prison Act 1952. We inspect: The Inspectorate sets its own inspection criteria ¡¡ adult men’s and women’s prisons in England and to ensure transparency and independence. The Wales starting point of all inspections is the outcome for ¡¡ young offender institutions (YOIs) in England and detainees. The Inspectorate’s Expectations are based Wales on and referenced against international human rights ¡¡ secure training centres (STCs) in England standards, with the aim of promoting treatment and ¡¡ all forms of immigration detention throughout the conditions in detention which at least meet recognised 1 UK and overseas escorts international human rights standards. ¡¡ police custody in England and Wales Expectations for inspections of adult male and ¡¡ court custody in England and Wales female prisons and YOIs are based on four tests of a ¡¡ Border Force custody in England and Scotland healthy establishment: ¡¡ military detention facilities throughout the UK, by ¡¡ Safety – prisoners, particularly the most vulnerable, invitation are held safely. ¡¡ prisons in Northern Ireland, by invitation ¡¡ Respect – prisoners are treated with respect for ¡¡ prisons and other custodial institutions in other their human dignity. jurisdictions with links to the UK, by invitation. ¡¡ Purposeful activity – prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to Most inspections take place in partnership with benefit them. other inspectorates, including Ofsted, Estyn, HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue

1 All the Inspectorate’s Expectations are available at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations

4 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales ¡¡ Rehabilitation and release planning (Resettlement Inspectors use five key sources of evidence in making in women’s prisons) – prisoners are supported to their assessments: maintain and develop relationships with their family ¡¡ observation and friends. Prisoners are helped to reduce their ¡¡ prisoner/detainee surveys likelihood of reoffending and their risk of harm is ¡¡ discussions with prisoners/detainees managed effectively. Prisoners are prepared for ¡¡ discussions with staff and relevant third parties their release into the community. ¡¡ documentation. The tests for immigration detention facilities are similar, HMI Prisons operates an almost entirely unannounced but also take into account the specific circumstances inspection programme (other than in exceptional applying to detainees and the fact that they have not circumstances), with all inspections following up been charged with a criminal offence or detained recommendations from the previous inspection. through normal judicial processes. In other inspection There is a minimum frequency for inspection of all sectors the principles underpinning the healthy types of establishments, with the timing of inspections establishment concept are applied, but the specific deliberately unpredictable. Such an approach is based focus varies depending on the sector. These are on, and responsive to, considered intelligence and described in more detail in the relevant sections of the proactive risk assessment. report. Prisons are inspected at least once every five years, Each expectation describes the standards of treatment although we expect to inspect most every two to and conditions an establishment is expected to three years. Some high-risk establishments may be achieve. These are underpinned by a series of inspected more frequently, including those holding ‘indicators’ which describe evidence that may show children, which are currently inspected annually. the expectation being met. The list of indicators is not exhaustive and does not exclude other ways of Every immigration removal centre (IRC) receives a full achieving the expectation. unannounced inspection at least once every four years, or every two years if it holds children. Non-residential The inspection team assesses the establishment’s short-term holding facilities (STHFs) are inspected performance against the healthy establishment tests at least once every six years. Residential STHFs are using the following judgements: inspected at least once every four years. Within this Numeric Definition framework, all immigration inspections are scheduled on a risk-assessed basis. 4 Outcomes for prisoners are good. There is no evidence that outcomes for detainees are being We inspect each police force’s custody suites at least adversely affected in any significant areas. once every six years, or more often if concerns have 3 Outcomes for prisoners are reasonably good. been raised during a previous inspection or by other There is evidence of adverse outcomes for detainees in intelligence. Court custody facilities are inspected at only a small number of areas. For the majority there are no significant concerns. least once every six years, and Border Force custody facilities are inspected at least once every two years. 2 Outcomes for prisoners are not sufficiently good. There is evidence that outcomes for detainees are being In addition to inspections of individual establishments, adversely affected in many areas or particularly in those we produce thematic reports on cross-cutting issues, areas of greatest importance to the well-being of detainees. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become singly or with other inspectorates as part of the areas of serious concern. Criminal Justice Joint Inspection process. We also use our inspection findings to make observations and 1 Outcomes for prisoners are poor. There is evidence that the outcomes for detainees are recommendations relating to proposed legislative and seriously affected by current practice. There is a failure to policy changes. ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for detainees. Immediate remedial action is required.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 5 1 Introduction by the Chief Inspector of Prisons

6 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction

The recent history of many prisons in is much that is firmly within the control of England and Wales has been deeply those whose responsibility it is to lead and troubling. We saw once more in manage these complex establishments. It is 2018–19 – the fourth year on which I as clear as day, and I see it for myself week have reported – that far too many of in, week out as I join our inspection teams our jails have been plagued by drugs, across England and Wales, that the variations violence, appalling living conditions in performance of apparently comparable and a lack of access to meaningful jails is directly influenced by the quality of rehabilitative activity. Our inspections of their leadership. Indeed, on occasions a HMPs Exeter, Birmingham and Bedford decision as to whether to invoke the Urgent Notification Protocol has been influenced showed dramatically the need for urgent by my confidence in whether the prison improvement. Some others caused leadership has the capacity and capability to us great concern. Overall, levels of drive improvement. self‑harm were disturbingly high and self-inflicted deaths tragically increased I make no apologies for asserting, too, by nearly one-fifth on the previous year. that well-run jails will more often than not have a history of taking our inspection However, we were also struck, as in previous recommendations seriously. It was evident to years, by the extraordinary dedication of us in 2018–19 that some leadership teams those who work in our prisons. Their work is were more prepared than others to take difficult, often dangerous, largely unseen by responsibility and be held accountable for the public and, as a result, little understood. implementing those recommendations and Many worked through a period in which sustaining improvement. reduced resources, both in terms of staff and investment, made it extremely difficult to run some of our jails. Many are new to their jobs The work of HM Inspectorate of Prisons The bulk of our work involves detention and deserve as much support as possible related to the criminal justice system as they gain experience and grow into – adult male and female prisons and their roles in an environment where, in too establishments holding young people. many establishments, drug-fuelled violence Inevitably, these reports attract a great deal remains a daily reality. of public attention. But the full scope of the HM Inspectorate of Prisons does not run, or Inspectorate’s work is set out in this report seek to regulate, our prisons. But we can and and it would be a mistake to underestimate do report on our experience of leadership – the importance of what we do in other at local, regional and national levels in HM settings – immigration detention, police Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). custody, courts, Border Force and military Some issues that have an adverse impact detention. I hope the report captures the on prisoners are often outside the control breadth of our work and the vital importance of prison leaders, such as the availability of of it in helping to fulfil the United Kingdom’s accommodation for those being released, or international obligations to provide regular, delays in transferring those suffering from independent, preventive inspections of mental illness to secure beds. However, there places of detention.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 7 SECTION ONE Introduction

We do not have a prison service that is In previous years I have reported entirely in crisis on the increasingly poor response As I have said many times, and this report to recommendations made by the bears out, we inspect parts of the custodial Inspectorate. Indeed, for the past two estate that are demonstrably well run – safe, years I have had to make the point that the calm, professional and caring. This includes, number of recommendations achieved by for example, parts of the high-security estate establishments had, for the first time, fallen and women’s prisons (where dedicated staff below those that were not achieved. This deal with some of the most vulnerable of has continued to be the case in 2018–19, all prisoners). We see some dedicated and but there has at least been a slight closing of commendable care in the children’s estate, the gap. working with many extremely vulnerable and Figure 1: Recommendations achieved challenging young people.

However, category B and C men’s local and 50 training prisons account for the numerical bulk of prisoners. With their high through-put 40 of prisoners, their often worn-out fabric, their vulnerable populations and their levels of 30 violence and illicit drugs use, they were this year the prisons that, as in previous years, Percentage 20 caused us most concern. Staff shortages had been so acute that risks to both prisoners 10 and staff were often severe, and levels of all 0 types of violence had soared. Meanwhile, the 2014–15 2015–16 2016–17 2017–18 2018–19 appalling impact of illicit drugs, particularly Report Year new psychoactive substances (NPS) had been underestimated and as a result many Achieved Partially achieved Not achieved prisons were still suffering from the debt, The need for accountability bullying and violence they generated. The Acting on our recommendations, and being response to the deluge of drugs flowing held accountable for doing so, should be a into many prisons in recent years has too key feature of prison leadership. often been slow and neither robust nor sophisticated. The introduction of new We are not management consultants, technology that is necessary to help counter and nor should we aspire to be. It is not the threat has been patchy. for us to promote a particular style of leadership. However, where we see either Our recommendations good or less good examples of leadership, I completely understand that there have management or supervision having a direct been resource constraints over the past impact on the outcomes experienced by few years that have made it extraordinarily prisoners we should report what we see difficult for many prison governors to and make appropriate judgements. In fact, maintain performance, let alone improve. I would suggest that there is a very clear responsibility on us to do so. We believe that our recommendations, if effectively implemented, give prisons Some examples from this year that are a path to improvement. It has therefore particularly concerning relate to the tragic been of particular concern to see that, issue of self-inflicted deaths in prisons. in some prisons, our reports have not Inspectors sometimes found an inexcusable been taken sufficiently seriously. In some lack of supervision or management cases, they appear to have been almost intervention to ensure men at risk of completely ignored. This is disappointing and self‑harm were held safely. counterproductive.

8 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction

¡¡ At HMP Exeter, where inspectors reported be a turning point in improving the impact very high levels of vulnerability, self-harm of independent prison inspection in England and suicide, cell call bells were routinely and Wales. The Urgent Notification process ignored by staff, even when they were not and the new Independent Reviews of busy. The prison’s own records showed Progress have now been implemented, and lengthy delays in answering them. There it is important to understand why they were had been a clear lack of management necessary and how they came into being. oversight to deal with this. I have previously reported on how, after the ¡¡ At HMP Birmingham, we found a number loss of the Prisons and Courts Bill following of particularly vulnerable prisoners living the calling of the General Election in 2017, in squalid cells. One prisoner, despite the then Secretary of State and I agreed having been formally assessed as that we needed to try to capture as many vulnerable, was in a filthy, flooded cell of the aspirations of the Bill as possible and which had the blood of another prisoner achieve them through administrative rather on the floor. Another vulnerable prisoner than legislative means. We immediately was being held in a cell in which he embarked on work that resulted in the had been hosed down on at least two Urgent Notification process, agreed in occasions by other prisoners, yet it took November 2017, and used for the first time repeated interventions from inspectors in January 2018 at HMP Nottingham. I have before he was moved. also made it clear that had it been in place ¡¡ In our survey at HMP Bedford, only a earlier, I would have invoked the process third of prisoners who had been subject for HMPs Wormwood Scrubs and Liverpool to assessment, care in custody and in 2017. The key feature of the process is teamwork (ACCT) case management that if I have serious concerns about the procedures because they were at risk of treatment and conditions of prisoners as a self-harm or suicide told us they felt cared result of an inspection, I should write to the for by staff, and many records did not Secretary of State, and he will respond with evidence meaningful staff engagement an action plan setting out what is to be done with them. Progress in implementing to improve matters. Both documents will be some recommendations made by the published. We used the Urgent Notification Prisons and Probation Ombudsman Protocol three times in 2018–19, at HMPs (PPO) following five self-inflicted deaths Exeter, Birmingham and Bedford. was too slow and some actions had not been completed. In January 2018, the Justice Select Committee held an enquiry following These are just three examples from the publication of our report into the inspection past year. More broadly we found that, as in of HMP Liverpool in September 2017. The the previous two years, recommendations prison had deteriorated to such an extent made by the PPO following a death had that living conditions were among the not been adequately addressed in about a worst inspectors had ever seen. During the third of prisons we inspected. This is a key evidence session it emerged that the prison responsibility of leadership, and where we was reporting through line management that see failures, we will report and offer views 66% of the recommendations we had made as to how those failures have come about. at our previous inspection were on track to This is clearly our responsibility and a vital be implemented. The true picture was very contribution to effective accountability. different. During the inspection we found that only 25% of our recommendations Transparency had been achieved. The Select Committee How do we independently assess expressed concern that HMPPS was accountability in the inevitably closed world effectively ‘marking its own homework’ and of prisons? The need for greater transparency concluded there should be an injection of in the delivery of this key public service has independence in the follow up to inspection led to some important developments over reports – something that at that time HMI the past two years that I hope will prove to Prisons was simply not resourced to do.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 9 SECTION ONE Introduction

The Committee therefore recommended that had been in special measures for two that we should be provided with additional years, and yet had declined in no less than funding, which was subsequently agreed by three of our four healthy prison tests and government. failed to improve in the vital test of safety. Similarly, the special measures at HMP As a result, the past year has seen HMI Bedford left me with little confidence that Prisons develop an entirely new methodology the prison could improve, and the use of the for carrying out what we have termed Urgent Notification process was inevitable. ‘Independent Reviews of Progress’ (IRPs). There will be around 15–20 of these each HMI Prisons will remain resolutely year, and they will be fundamentally different independent in all that it does, but that to an inspection. They will usually be should not and will not stop us being carried out within a year of an inspection, supportive and, where appropriate, and will be focused on prisons subject to collaborative in helping prisons to improve. an Urgent Notification or where there are We are therefore pleased that early other causes for serious concern. They will indications are that establishments are concentrate on progress in implementing warmly welcoming the advent of IRPs. key recommendations, and will look to Managers have appreciated the focus that see if action plans are properly focused, the IRP visits have given. This has not resourced, and with clear timelines and lines surprised us, as we frequently find instances of accountability for improvement. As with of prison officers and managers making Urgent Notifications, IRPs will be published, highly commendable efforts to support those affording a higher level of both political and in custody. It is particularly welcome to find public accountability than has hitherto been new staff who are enthusiastic about their the case. work. This was the case at HMP Maidstone, where many of the staff were still gaining Our first IRPs at HMPs Exeter, Chelmsford, experience but provided enthusiastic The Mount and Birmingham have suggested and helpful support to prisoners, who that a great deal of energy has gone into acknowledged that staff were improving as responding to Urgent Notifications and some they gained knowledge and confidence. other very concerning inspection reports, but New staff were provided with an experienced that in some instances the response has colleague to mentor them. been disappointingly slow. Nevertheless, the early indications are that they are prompting I certainly do not underestimate the challenge a more focused response than we have of running safe, decent, respectful and become accustomed to seeing in the past. purposeful prisons from which prisoners will be released back into communities less likely I firmly believe that these new measures are to reoffend. Independent inspection can play an appropriate response to the difficulties an important role in supporting this objective. that many prisons have experienced in However, this must be complemented by a recent years. It is of course incumbent upon positive response to our reports and proper the prison service itself to respond positively accountability at all levels for doing so. to inspections. For too many years this has not happened consistently enough. It is A developing inspectorate clear from the example of HMP Liverpool, Aside from the work to develop and among others, that the prison service has implement the Urgent Notification process not always been aware of where there are and IRPs, we have continued to review our serious problems and has not been able to work to ensure our inspection programme put in place measures to prevent the decline remains relevant and responsive. of struggling prisons. On some occasions the response has been to place a struggling For some 20 years we have inspected prison in ‘special measures’, but I do not against our healthy prison tests, based on have confidence in that as a reliable means international human rights standards. We of driving improvement. The inspection of have continuously refined and developed HMP Lewes in January 2019 found a prison these tests and our inspection methodology.

10 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction

This year, we published three sets of our Respectful detention and living conditions independent Expectations for inspecting The gradual roll-out of in-cell telephony has places of detention: been welcomed in those prisons where it has ¡¡ Expectations: Criteria for assessing the taken place, as have the electronic kiosks treatment of children and conditions in which make it easier for prisoners to make prisons (4th edition) applications, health care appointments, arrange visits and make complaints. ¡¡ Expectations for police custody: Criteria However, far too many prisoners still endure for assessing the treatment of and very poor and overcrowded living conditions. conditions for detainees in police custody The prisons where we invoked the Urgent (revised 3rd edition), published jointly with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Notification process were where we saw Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS) some of the most squalid conditions, but as we have said in the past on many occasions, ¡¡ Expectations: Criteria for assessing the broken windows, unscreened lavatories in treatment of and conditions for detainees shared cells, vermin and filth should not ,2 held in designated TACT custody suites feature in 21st century jails. also published jointly with HMICFRS. Despite some of the appalling conditions in During the year we also reviewed our internal which prisoners lived and staff worked, it was governance arrangements, and decided that reassuring that in our surveys, around two- we needed a clearer delineation between thirds of prisoners were positive about the strategic management and operational way they were treated by staff. Nevertheless, delivery. We have therefore created a new a sharper focus on issues of equality and Corporate Governance Board which has diversity is still needed. We frequently found the responsibility for ensuring that we that prisoners from black and minority ethnic consistently adhere to the highest standards backgrounds had less positive views of their of public sector governance. This group will treatment and conditions, but rarely was be complemented by an Operational Delivery enough done by establishments to analyse Board that has the task of ensuring our and understand those perceptions. inspection programme (now considerably increased and therefore more complex since It was also disappointing that there was, as the advent of IRPs) is delivered to time yet, no clear strategy for older prisoners. and to quality. These are of course internal The Model for Operational Delivery was arrangements, but nevertheless important published during the year, but was more of a in ensuring that HMI Prisons carries out its menu of options from which governors might responsibilities efficiently and effectively. draw local responses than an overarching strategy. As of December 2018, 17% of the Men’s prisons prison population was aged over 50 (see Safety still a major problem footnote 11), and so far there is neither a Too many prisoners were still being held in clear strategy nor indication of innovation in prisons that were unsafe. Levels of violence how this increasing cohort of prisoners will had increased in more than half the prisons be catered for in the future. At the moment we inspected. A total of 28 local and training there are large and growing numbers of prisons were inspected during the year, and ageing and infirm prisoners who are held in in 22 of them we judged safety to be poor expensive and unnecessary levels of security. or not sufficiently good. Given the clear link between illicit drugs and violence, it Purposeful activity was disappointing that too few prisons had In only a third of the adult male prisons developed a comprehensive or effective drug that we inspected was purposeful activity, strategy. It was also notable that self-harm which includes the provision of education, had increased in two-thirds of the prisons we work and training, judged to be good or inspected. reasonably good.

2 TACT custody suites hold people detained for terrorist and terrorism-related offences.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 11 SECTION ONE Introduction

Staff shortages and levels of violence often capability, and sometimes because meant that prisoners were unable to attend their particular requirements in terms of education and training, and were locked rehabilitation could not be met in the prisons in their cells for inordinate lengths of time. where they were being held. This latter point Our survey suggested that in the prisons we is particularly concerning when we have inspected, this had become worse than in seen large cohorts of sex offenders being previous years. held in prisons where specialist interventions were not available. Our joint thematic I have been very concerned to see the inspection with HMI Probation, Management number of prisons we inspected where there and supervision of men convicted of sexual were simply not enough places providing offences, highlighted our serious concerns in meaningful and purposeful activity. For this area. instance, at HMP Chelmsford there were 300 unemployed prisoners, and at HMP The introduction of the Offender High Down, some 500 were unemployed. Management in Custody programme (OMiC) The latter example was particularly has the potential to be a very positive concerning as at the time of the inspection innovation. It is too early to come to any the establishment was earmarked to judgements as to its overall effectiveness become a training prison. I have also seen and, as yet, it is not fully implemented. prisons where large numbers of prisoners However, where keyworkers have been are allocated to wing work, as cleaners introduced, I have received positive or painters, sometimes without having comments from prisoners who feel that they equipment to fulfil these tasks. I have met have an individual to whom they can turn, painters who had neither paint nor brushes, and from staff who welcome the opportunity and cleaners whose mops were bone-dry. to engage constructively with prisoners. Nevertheless, they were recorded as being The introduction of OMiC has been made in employment. Although I have seen some possible by the recent increase in staff excellent vocational training and good numbers, and is to be welcomed. education provision, too much of the work in prisons is mundane, menial and repetitive. We have seen examples of good work to promote family contact, and this is an area If the purpose of prison, after fulfilling the where we found examples of good practice sentence of the court, is to rehabilitate, how in several prisons. However, too often can that be achieved if prisoners are unable family members and friends travelled long to access education or training because distances to make visits, which then started there are not enough places? At present late through no fault of their own. Time was ‘overcrowding’ in prisons is assessed by lost from the visit, and this is unacceptable. the prison service based on how many Some prisons managed to avoid this prisoners can be crammed into the available happening, and all should aspire to do so. cells. Perhaps we should think about describing prisons as being overcrowded if, When prisoners are released, it is well among other things, there are not enough known that the risk of reoffending is meaningful education or work places for the significantly raised if they do not have prisoners being held in them? sustainable accommodation to go to. The provision of suitable accommodation is Rehabilitation and release planning usually beyond the control of the prison, Overall, while we have found some progress but early assessment of need and good in this area, much remains to be done. We quality relationships with local authorities have been particularly concerned to find can help. I have met many governors and prisoners who presented a potentially high senior managers who are deeply concerned risk of harm to the public being released about this issue, as they know that whatever without a full risk assessment. Sometimes rehabilitation and resettlement work they this was because they were being released deliver can be jeopardised or wasted if a from prisons that did not have a resettlement prisoner has nowhere to live on release.

12 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction

Women’s prisons Nevertheless, levels of violence remained Overall, we continued to find that outcomes high and bullying was a constant concern. for women held in prison were better than The rate of violence in terms of incidents per for men. Safety, respect and resettlement person is higher in STCs than anywhere else were good or reasonably good at all three we inspect. of the women’s prisons that we inspected. Generally, there was a welcome movement However, our gradings for purposeful activity towards developing a rewards and incentives had deteriorated at two of the prisons, and approach towards behaviour management, had declined to not sufficiently good at HMP but there was still much work to be done. In Send. STCs we saw significant inconsistencies in It was a pleasing and reassuring feature of the approaches used. It was also apparent women’s prisons that relationships between that measures such as ‘keep-apart’ lists, staff and the women being held were used to try to control violence between generally very positive. We also found that at children, could have a detrimental impact on all three of the prisons we inspected, women the ability to get children to school and other had a good amount of time out of their cells. activities. It remained the case that women were far It was concerning that half of the children we more vulnerable to self-harm than men, surveyed said that they had been restrained and levels had increased significantly. The during their time in detention, which is the levels of victimisation suffered by many highest figure we have seen since we started women before entering custody emphasised recording this issue in 2002. Despite this, we the need to continue and develop the found that relationships between staff and vital trauma-informed work that has been children were generally positive, although implemented in recent years. it would be naïve to dismiss the potential impact that violence against staff could have We found that the support available to on this in the future. women to maintain contact with families and friends varied from prison to prison. Immigration detention Clearly the low number of women’s prisons Across the immigration detention estate means that prisoners are likely to be held we found outcomes that were good or further from home, and maintaining contact reasonably good. However, detainees is therefore more problematic in many continued to feel unsafe and uncertain cases. For the future, finding innovative because there was too often a lack of clarity ways of maintaining contact should be a as to what the future held for them, and in priority, such as through the greater use of particular how long they were to be held technology. in detention. Although most detainees were held for less than two months, some Children’s custody continued to be held for extended periods. During the year we inspected four young More needs to be done to ensure that delays offender institutions and three secure to casework are minimised. training centres. We continue to inspect these establishments on a more regular basis It was still the case that too many detainees than adult prisons because of the higher with vulnerabilities remained in detention, risks associated with them. defeating the stated objectives of the Home Office’s own policy. Following the appalling lack of safety in children’s custody that led me to write to the We had real concerns about the use of then minister in February 2017, pointing out restraints on some detainees who were that at time there were no YOIs or STCs that on charter flights removing them from we had inspected which we could say were the United Kingdom. On some flights sufficiently safe to hold children, there had the restraint applied to detainees was been an overall improvement. Our safety disproportionate to any assessed risk, and gradings had improved in three inspections. we are pleased that the Home Office has

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 13 SECTION ONE Introduction since responded to our concerns with a Acknowledgements review of operational procedures. This is a Despite all the challenges faced by prisons in subject that will need consistent monitoring recent years, I am always aware of the huge to ensure that there is no regression to the amount of care, compassion, courage and unacceptable practices we witnessed during goodwill shown by those who work in our inspections. jails. They have an enormously challenging job to do on our behalf, and their dedication, It is concerning that the Home Office still skill and patience is often remarkable. As does not classify the deaths of detainees an inspectorate we rely on them to support shortly after release as ‘deaths in custody’. us. We simply could not do our work without This is at odds with the practice in other their help. During inspections I invariably custodial environments, such as police thank governors and their teams for their custody, and should be changed. cooperation, and I hope they need no reassurance that those thanks are genuinely Police custody felt by all who work for the Inspectorate. We continued to inspect police custody in partnership with HMICFRS. We have jointly This year has been one of unprecedented written to Chief Constables expressing our challenge for the Inspectorate. We have concern about the governance and oversight been going through changes of a scale of the use of force, and this year, in the and complexity that we have never faced nine forces we inspected, it was a cause of before, and at a pace that has been hugely concern in five of those forces and an area demanding, but entirely necessary. The for improvement in the remaining four. introduction of Urgent Notifications and IRPs are an enormous opportunity but The improvement in the physical conditions are only happening because of a vast in which detainees are held in police amount of hard work by many dedicated, custody in recent years is notable, but experienced and skilful colleagues. To make a consequence of the centralisation of that happen, we have had to recruit, induct custody facilities is that the process of arrest, and deploy more new inspectors than ever reception, investigation and release can take before. We are also reviewing the way we longer than before. make recommendations, changing how we A significant development during the year record and retain evidence, and reforming was our work to develop a set of Expectations our internal governance arrangements. for the detention of those held in so-called Whether in the field or elsewhere, every ‘TACT suites’, where those suspected of single member of HMI Prisons has been involvement in terrorism or terrorist-related instrumental in delivering the inspection offences are held following arrest. The first programme and driving changes at the inspection of these facilities was carried out Inspectorate. I am immensely grateful in early 2019. The report of that inspection to each and every one of them for their will be published and referred to in the contribution to our vital work. 2019–20 Annual Report.

14 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 15 2 The year in brief SECTION TWO The year in brief

Between 1 April 2018 and 31 March 2019 Other publications we published 78 inspection and thematic In 2018–19, we published the following reports. additional reports: ¡¡ Close supervision centre system Adult prisons (England and Wales): ¡¡ Social care in prisons in England and ¡¡ inspections of 35 prisons holding adult Wales, in conjunction with the Care men Quality Commission ¡¡ three prisons holding adult women. ¡¡ Management and supervision of men convicted of sexual offences, jointly with Establishments holding children and HMI Probation young people: ¡¡ Monitoring places of detention. Ninth ¡¡ four inspections of young offender annual report of the United Kingdom’s institutions (YOIs) holding children under National Preventive Mechanism 2017–18 the age of 18 3 (on behalf of the NPM) ¡¡ four inspections of three secure training ¡¡ Children in custody 2017–18. An analysis centres (STCs) holding children aged 12 of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their to 18, jointly with Ofsted. experience in secure training centres and young offender institutions. Immigration detention: During 2018–19, we also published three ¡¡ three immigration removal centres sets of our expectations for inspecting ¡¡ one family detention unit places of detention. In May 2018, we ¡¡ six short-term holding facilities issued a revised version of the third edition ¡¡ four charter flight removals. of Expectations for police custody: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for detainees in police custody, published jointly Police custody: with HMICFRS. In November 2018, we ¡¡ police custody suites in nine force areas published the fourth edition of Expectations: with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Criteria for assessing the treatment of Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). children and conditions in prisons. At the end of 2018, and also in conjunction with Court custody: HMICFRS, we issued the firstExpectations: ¡¡ three court custody areas. Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for detainees held in designated Extra-jurisdiction inspection: TACT custody suites, the standards by which ¡¡ one prison in Northern Ireland. we inspect outcomes for people detained for terrorist and terrorism-related offences. During the year we issued three Urgent Notification letters to the Justice Secretary expressing our serious concerns immediately following an inspection of a prison.

3 The inspections of the Keppel Unit and Wetherby were published together in one report.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 17 SECTION TWO The year in brief

We also made written submissions to a range Oral evidence of consultations and inquiries, commented ¡¡ Justice Select Committee, Transforming on draft Detention Services Orders, and gave Rehabilitation (17 April 2018) oral evidence to Parliamentary committees, ¡¡ Home Affairs Committee, Immigration including: Detention (8 May 2018) Written submissions ¡¡ Welsh Affairs Committee, Prison Provision in Wales (22 May 2018) ¡¡ Commission on Justice in Wales, Review of the Criminal Justice System in Wales ¡¡ Health and Social Care Committee, (1 June 2018) Prison Healthcare (3 July 2018) ¡¡ Health and Social Care Committee, ¡¡ Joint Committee on Human Rights, Youth Prison Healthcare (1 June 2018) Detention: Solitary Confinement and Restraint (10 October 2018) ¡¡ Joint Committee on Human Rights, Youth Detention: Solitary Confinement ¡¡ Joint Committee on Human Rights, and Restraint (19 June 2018) Immigration Detention (31 October 2018) ¡¡ Advisory Council on Misuse of Drugs, ¡¡ Justice Select Committee, Prison Custody-Community Transitions Population 2022: Planning for the Future (20 June 2018) (21 November 2018) ¡¡ Joint Committee on Human Rights, ¡¡ Commission on Justice in Wales, Review Immigration Detention (6 September of the Criminal Justice System in Wales 2018) (14 February 2019) ¡¡ Her Majesty’s Prison and Our reports and publications are published Probation Service, ACCT Process online at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov. (13 September 2018) uk/hmiprisons ¡¡ Home Office, PACE codes C and H Report publication and other news is notified (29 September 2018) via our Twitter account. Go to: https://twitter. ¡¡ Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation com/HMIPrisonsnews or @HMIPrisonsnews Service, IEP Policy Framework (9 October 2018) ¡¡ Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, Complaints Policy Framework (31 October 2018) ¡¡ Home Office, Detention Services Order, ‘Management and Security of Night State’ (12 October 2018) ¡¡ Home Office, Detention Services Order, ‘Accommodation: Lighting, Heating and Ventilation’ (14 December 2018) ¡¡ Home Affairs Committee, Macpherson: 20 Years On (15 February 2019) ¡¡ Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, Release on Temporary Licence Policy Framework (27 February 2019) ¡¡ Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, Call for evidence: ‘Adults at Risk’ in immigration detention (7 March 2019)

18 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION TWO The year in brief

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 19 3 Men in prison SECTION THREE Men in prison

The findings from prison inspections We have compared the outcomes for the reported in this section are based on the prisons we reported on in 2018–19 with fifth edition of ourExpectations: Criteria the outcomes we reported the last time for assessing the treatment of prisoners we inspected the same establishments and conditions in prisons, published in (figure 3). Details for each healthy prison July 2017. assessment area are also shown in figure 4 (safety, p.22), figure 5 (respect, p.27), During our inspections in 2018–19, we made figure 6 (purposeful activity, p.33) 35 healthy prison assessments in prisons and figure 10 (rehabilitation and release and young offender institutions holding adult planning, p.39). and young adult men (figure 2).

Figure 2: Published outcomes for all prisons and young offender institutions (YOIs) holding adult and young adult men (35)

Safety 4 9 14 8

Respect 4 17 12 2

Purposeful activity 2 10 12 11 Good Reasonably good Rehabilitation and 1 21 11 2 Not sufficiently good release planning Poor

Figure 3: Outcome changes from previous inspections of prisons and YOIs holding adult and young adult men (35)

25

20 21 21 19

15 14 12 10 10 Declined 9 9 8 Unchanged 5 6 6 Improved 5 Number of HPAs declined/unchanged/improved

0 Safety Respect Purposeful activity Rehabilitation and release planning

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 21 SECTION THREE Men in prison

Prisons have become less safe for some

¡¡ Safety outcomes had declined in 10 Outcome of previous recommendations prisons inspected but six prisons showed In the adult male prisons reported on in 2018–19, improvement (see figure 3). 41% of our previous recommendations in the ¡¡ Violence had increased in more than half the area of safety had been achieved, 10% partially prisons we inspected. achieved and 49% not achieved.4 ¡¡ The use of peer support and a collaborative approach to addressing violence were features of the safer prisons. Early days Because of lengthy delays at court, prisoners ¡¡ A combination of poor living conditions and often arrived late at their destination prison. This a lack of purposeful regime contributed to was a particular problem in local prisons, such as continued drug misuse and violence. Bedford and Manchester. The impact was that first ¡¡ The introduction of technology such as body night procedures were often insufficient due to scanners and devices to test incoming mail lower numbers of staff at night. for illicit substances offered more tools in the battle to reduce the supply of drugs. Journeys from Crown courts were relatively short, ¡¡ The number of self-inflicted deaths and but many prisoners experienced lengthy delays incidents of self-harm had increased at court before being brought to the prison. substantially since last year. Manchester

Overall, safety outcomes in adult male prisons Some establishments still strip-searched all were similar to those we have found in previous prisoners in reception routinely, rather than on the years, with only 13 of the 35 prisons reported on basis of individual risk assessment. Many prisoners in 2018–19 assessed as good or reasonably good. continued to be frustrated by delays in receiving Safety outcomes in local prisons were of particular their property following transfer from one prison concern, and were assessed as poor or not to another. sufficiently good in 12 of the 14 inspected this year. While the enhanced welfare checks on prisoners during their first 24 hours in custody at Leicester Figure 4: Safety outcomes in establishments holding adult and were good practice, the care for new arrivals young adult men remained inconsistent in too many prisons. There was too much variation in the quality of procedures Good Reasonably Not Poor to identify prisoner risk, and in some prisons good sufficiently interviews to understand and assess this did not good take place in private. This inhibited prisoners, Local prisons 0 2 5 7 potentially stopping them from disclosing safety Training prisons 0 4 9 1 concerns. High security 0 2 0 0 prisons The standard of first night accommodation varied Open prisons 3 0 0 0 greatly. Prisoners were often placed in cells that were not adequately equipped. Young adult prisons 0 1 0 0 Therapeutic 1 0 0 0 community [A] recent case ended up as a use of force incident when a prisoner reacted badly to being Total 4 9 14 8 located into a cell that managers had taken out of commission because it was not fit for habitation. Exeter

4 Note that figures have been rounded and may not total 100%. This applies throughout the report.

22 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Most prisons recognised the benefits of using prisoner peer support during reception and Onley was a clear example where the first night processes. In Peterborough, peer failure to deal with drugs and violence support workers were used effectively in undermined many other aspects of prison reception to provide drug recovery support life. There was a vicious circle where fear, and to act as Listeners – prisoners trained frustration and boredom increased the by the Samaritans to provide confidential demand for drugs, which in turn fuelled the emotional support to fellow prisoners. violence, and thus completed the circle. Onley Most prisoners received an induction to prison life, and peer workers were also often In our survey, over half of respondents in involved in the delivery of programmes. adult male prisons stated that they had felt However, the quality of induction was unsafe, and this was as high as 60% in local inconsistent. While prisoners and staff prisons. Nearly half of respondents said they worked well together in some prisons had experienced assaults or bullying from to deliver a useful introduction to the other prisoners but only a third said that prison, the process too often lacked staff they would report it. However, some prisons oversight, resulting in peer workers providing encouraged prisoners to play an active part inaccurate or inappropriate advice to new in making the prison safe. At Long Lartin this arrivals. had led to innovative practices.

Some information in the presentation These included a leaflet drop and reporting was outdated and some advice was forms to all prisoners, encouraging them to inappropriate; for example, prisoners tell staff about any concerns on antisocial were advised to speak to OMU [offender behaviour or safety. The result had been management unit] prisoner representatives an increase in the reporting of incidents by if they had queries about their sentence prisoners. Long Lartin plans, which was not a legitimate role for prisoner representatives to undertake. The Mount Despite the continued increase in violence, many prisons had poorly defined violence reduction strategies and failed to address Encouraging positive behaviour the causes of violence effectively. There was Violence recorded against both staff and limited analysis of data to provide learning prisoners had increased at more than half from previous incidents, and ineffective the prisons we inspected and in some, meetings that failed to progress action plans. such as Peterborough and Durham, it had Wandsworth, however, had implemented a doubled. At Exeter, the level of violence was collaborative staff and prisoner approach to among the highest we have seen in local reduce violence. prisons for a number of years. By contrast, at Stoke Heath, where violence had not The violence reduction element of the increased to the levels seen elsewhere, the safer custody strategy had been developed prison was well ordered with staff clearly in collaboratively and was informed by control. prisoner and staff perceptions, opinions and experiences. This made it meaningful We often saw violence linked to other issues, and relevant. Wandsworth such as drugs and associated debt, the frustration caused by restricted regimes, mental health issues, poor living conditions Some prisons employed peer support and a lack of staff supervision. workers in their efforts to reduce violence. At Oakwood, prisoners were involved in the violence reduction strategy and helped to mediate in situations that could otherwise escalate into violence.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 23 SECTION THREE Men in prison

The national roll-out of challenge, support and intervention plans (CSIP)5 was under Just over half of all adjudications were way and provided a consistent and effective either dismissed or not proceeded with, process to help improve safety. However, which greatly undermined the prison’s not all establishments used the process ability to challenge poor behaviour. Woodhill effectively. For example, at Channings Wood, despite the introduction of CSIP, support Most adjudications were fair and conducted for victims was poor and there had been properly. However, in many prisons – such no effective monitoring of perpetrators of as Chelmsford, Kirkham, Long Lartin, violence. But elsewhere the system was Exeter and Nottingham – some minor being implemented effectively. misdemeanours could have been dealt with more effectively though the IEP scheme. A new process for managing perpetrators This would have reduced the number of of violence, the ‘challenge, support and adjudications and ensured that the most intervention plan’, was showing early serious offences were dealt with. At Humber, signs of success and some challenging all prisoners found guilty for the first time individuals had shown an improvement in of taking drugs were given a suspended their behaviour. Peterborough punishment and referred to the drug and alcohol recovery team for intervention, which was good practice. However, behaviour management approaches were often ineffective, relying Recorded use of force had increased in on punitive measures, such as adjudication 28 prisons. Its governance remained weak or applying the basic level of the incentives at many establishments. At Bedford, the and earned privileges (IEP) scheme. Most monthly use of force committee ‘did not… IEP schemes lacked creativity and an review any video recordings or paperwork understanding of what motivated positive relating to incidents, to monitor the behaviour, although some prisons were proportionality of the force used’. taking steps to address these limitations. Use of force documents were too often missing statements or had insufficient detail Managers had… recently implemented a to justify the use of force. At Woodhill over monthly IEP forum which was co-chaired 400 supporting documents had not been by a senior manager and a prisoner completed, and at Chelmsford, although representative. A range of issues relating managers ensured that statements were to the incentives scheme were discussed completed, some contained too little and several anonymous [IEP] documents information to justify the use of force. At scrutinised. Maidstone Wandsworth, the governor had appointed a full-time use of force coordinator to improve Discipline, use of force and segregation quality and consistency. Similarly, at Hull The use of adjudications had continued the deputy governor reviewed all incidents, to increase in most prisons – many were and there were useful links between safer in response to antisocial behaviour and custody, security and senior managers to illicit drug use. Some prisons were unable understand the reasons for incidents. to cope with the high number of charges, Physical conditions remained poor for many and some adjudications were dismissed prisoners held in segregation units. In some due to procedural errors, which meant that units, prisoners were unable to shower or offences, including serious acts of violence, telephone their families every day, and most went unpunished. These issues undermined had only 30 minutes a day in the fresh air. staff authority and confidence in the system. Conditions in the segregation unit at Exeter were very poor, and the one prisoner we

5 A system used by some prisons to manage the most violent prisoners and support the most vulnerable prisoners. Prisoners identified as the perpetrator of serious or repeated violence, or who are vulnerable due to being the victim of violence or bullying behaviour, are managed and supported on a plan with individual targets and regular reviews.

24 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

saw there was locked up for almost 24 as body scanners (Belmarsh) and devices hours a day, with almost no human contact to test incoming mail for illicit substances and a poor regime. Exeter also had what (Hull). But some prisons, such as Durham amounted to an unofficial segregation unit. and Bedford, were frustrated by a lack of The prison had made little exploration of the investment in this area. Stoke Heath had root causes leading to prisoners’ segregation, developed very effective links with local and had no meaningful plans for their future policing units who, in partnership with management. prison managers, had encouraged the local community to report suspicious activity Despite poor conditions, segregation around the perimeter to minimise drug ‘throw unit staff and prisoners often had good overs’; this had met with some success. relationships. Many staff knew the prisoners in their care, and managed Suicide and self-harm continue to rise those who were challenging and complex There had been 83 self-inflicted deaths well. At Peterborough, the daily visit to the in male prisons in England and Wales in segregation unit by a dedicated mental 2018–19, an increase of 15% from 72 the health nurse was good practice. previous year. Levels of self-harm across all prisons continued to rise. There were 45,310 Drugs still a significant problem reported incidents in 2018, an increase of The use of drugs, particularly new 25% from 36,347 incidents in 2017.7 psychoactive substances,6 remained a major problem and was linked to many debt and Self-harm had increased in two-thirds of the violence issues. Prisoners’ substance use adult male prisons we inspected this year, was too often a result of a combination and we made main recommendations about of poor living conditions and a lack of serious deficiencies in suicide and self- purposeful regime (as we found at Exeter, harm prevention measures at 14 of them. Channings Wood and Bedford). The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) investigates all deaths in custody Very few prisons had an effective drug supply and makes recommendations to improve reduction strategy, and we rarely found a care. We found, once again, that PPO prison action plan driven by an integrated recommendations had not been adequately and coordinated multidisciplinary team to addressed at about a third of prisons. reduce both the demand and supply of drugs. At more than half of inspected adult male prisons, the quality of support for prisoners There had been no drug strategy meeting in crisis, delivered through assessment, in the six months prior to the inspection, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) case there was no supply reduction action plan management, was weak. In our survey, only and managers told us that the HMPPS area 47% of prisoners who had received this drug detection dogs were only occasionally support had felt cared for. Too often, care deployed at the prison. Deerbolt planning did not target concerns or support was ended without the proper resolution of issues. In contrast, both Hollesley Bay and Kirkham had a comprehensive multidisciplinary Initial concerns which prompted the approach to supply reduction, and no opening of the ACCT were rarely revisited prisoner had tested positive for psychoactive and individual care maps were not substances in the six months before our inspections. updated. Manchester

There had been positive moves to increase We found unmanageably high numbers of the use of drug-detection technology, such open ACCT documents at some prisons. This

6 Drugs that are developed or chosen to mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as cannabis, heroin or amphetamines and may have unpredictable and life-threatening effects. 7 HMPPS (2018). Safety in custody quarterly: update to December 2018. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/ statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly-update-to-december-2018

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 25 SECTION THREE Men in prison

was often a result of inexperienced staff who telephones at some prisons had improved were overcautious about risk, and directly prisoner access to the Samaritans helpline affected the ability of prisons to deliver good and gave them the chance to speak to loved quality care to those most at risk. ones during difficult times. Measures to protect adults at risk of harm, Some staff lacked the experience and abuse and neglect were underdeveloped confidence to support men in crisis, and in all prisons. Although most prisons had a consequently the number of men subject policy, and sometimes useful links to the local to ACCT procedures was consistently high safeguarding adults board, most staff lacked and unmanageable. Chelmsford sufficient understanding or training to identify concerns and make the necessary referrals. We saw some examples of very good support for prisoners, including family involvement in ACCT Close supervision centres case management, but these were usually This year we published our second restricted to smaller, specialist or open prisons inspection of the close supervision centre where staff had more time and resources. (CSC) system.8 Under prison rule 46,9 significantly disruptive and dangerous At a third of the prisons, support for prisoners prisoners can be removed from the ordinary in crisis was undermined because they spent prison population to be managed within too much time locked up, often in poor living separate, intensively supervised units. In conditions, and had a lack of purposeful these units, prisoners go through a process activity. This problem was particularly acute of individual risk assessment, offending at Woodhill, Bedford and Birmingham. behaviour interventions and therapy until the threat they pose has reduced, enabling a The lack of purposeful activity, long periods return to a normal or more suitable location. spent locked up… and the poor living conditions… all severely undermined This follow-up inspection found that regime support for prisoners at risk of suicide and provision had improved in most centres, self-harm. Bedford except for Woodhill where staffing difficulties in the host prison often affected the CSC. By contrast, the Full Sutton CSC offered an At several prisons, care was compromised by impressive and varied regime. unacceptable delays in staff response to cell call bells. Prisoners… could choose from a structured timetable of activities ranging In light of the very high levels of from work and domestic duties and therapy vulnerability, self-harm and suicide among sessions to craft classes, gardening and prisoners at Exeter, it was shocking to see horticulture. The activities rewarded the that cell call bells were routinely ignored progress prisoners had already made by staff… There was clearly a lack of and encouraged continuing engagement. management oversight or intervention in Full Sutton CSC this key aspect of prisoner safety. Exeter

Staff-prisoner relationships remained a key At almost half of prisons, access to Listeners strength in CSCs. Staff focused on prisoner was a problem. There were often not enough well-being and progression, despite receiving Listeners and they were not always available some verbal and occasionally violent abuse. to prisoners in reception, the segregation More prisoners now progressed to less unit or at night-time. In our survey, only restrictive special units, and sometimes back 40% of prisoners said it was easy to speak to mainstream prison wings. to a Listener. The introduction of in-cell

8 HMI Prisons (2017). Report on an announced thematic follow-up inspection of the Close supervision centre system. Available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/04/CSC-follow-up-web-2017.pdf 9 This permits the Secretary of State, for the maintenance of good order or discipline or to ensure the safety of officers, prisoners or any other person, to prevent a prisoner to associate with others and remove the person from association for placement within a close supervision centre.

26 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Poor living conditions for many prisoners

Figure 5: Respect outcomes in establishments holding adult and ¡¡ We rated 60% of prisons inspected this year young adult men as good or reasonably good in the area of respect. Good Reasonably Not Poor good sufficiently ¡¡ Two-thirds of prisoners were positive good about staff. Although officer staffing levels Local prisons 0 6 6 2 were improving, some prisons had a large proportion of new and very inexperienced staff Training prisons 1 8 5 0 who sometimes struggled to challenge poor High security prisons 1 0 1 0 prisoner behaviour. Open prisons 1 2 0 0 ¡¡ Living conditions for many prisoners were Young adult prisons 0 1 0 0 poor or not sufficiently good, and some were Therapeutic community 1 0 0 0 extremely squalid. Consultation with prisoners Total 4 17 12 2 was limited. ¡¡ Some prisoners from minority groups were Relationships between staff and prisoners negative about key aspects of prison life. Prison officers were regularly cross-deployed Prisons varied in the priority they gave to from specialist roles to cover operational duties. promoting equality and diversity, and too many There had been efforts to recruit and train new did not provide support through prisoner prison officers, but many prisons still lacked a forums or other networks. fully experienced workforce. We found many ¡¡ Prison health services were reasonably inexperienced officers without the confidence to good but there had been more breaches of challenge and motivate prisoners in their care. regulations than last year. ¡¡ The quality of support for prisoners with Many operational staff were relatively substance use needs remained good. inexperienced; we were told that 70% had been in the Prison Service for less than two years. Our healthy prison assessments for respect Chelmsford were about the same in this reporting year as in 2017–18, with more than half of prisons In a small number of prisons, the lack of control achieving a good or reasonably good healthy shown by prison officers was worrying, and was a prison assessment (see figure 5). problem at two of the three prisons for which an Urgent Notification was issued to the Secretary of Outcome of previous recommendations State. In the adult male prisons reported on in 2018–19, 41% of our previous recommendations in the area of respect had been achieved, 10% partially achieved and 50% not achieved.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 27 SECTION THREE Men in prison

At Exeter and Chelmsford, where conditions Some staff were clearly competent and were also grim, staff had become inured to we observed some relaxed and effective the low standards, perhaps because they relationships, but only on a minority of lacked comparative experience or were wings. Elsewhere, a lack of confidence and overwhelmed by the scale of the problem. inexperience in the workforce were having One of the worst examples of this was at a negative impact… Some wings were Birmingham, where the cells were dirty, poorly supervised… Boundaries between cramped and overcrowded, and had missing staff and prisoners were blurred… Some or broken furniture and windows. prisoners routinely disregarded rules and appropriate standards of behaviour, without [Some] particularly vulnerable prisoners challenge from staff. We regularly saw were living in squalid cells which were evidence of open drug taking, prisoners not fit for habitation. One prisoner on expected to endure intolerable living assessment, care in custody and teamwork conditions, and some vulnerable prisoners (ACCT) case management procedures was being openly bullied, with staff failing to living in a filthy, flooded cell. The blood take action. Birmingham of another prisoner, who had self-harmed two days previously, had not been cleaned Prisons were rolling out the new keyworker from the cell floor… Rubbish was left lying scheme as part of the national offender around in bags and there were problems management in custody (OMiC) model (see with fleas, cockroaches and rodents. p.40), and it was beginning to have some Birmingham effect. Prisoners’ perceptions about the quality The recently adopted keyworker scheme and quantity of the food were still often showed early signs of improving meaningful negative. Meals were frequently served too interactions between staff and prisoners. early, and the breakfast packs provided by Over half the prisoners in our survey said most establishments the day before they that staff had spoken to them in the last were meant to be eaten were very small week to see how they were getting on, with little sustenance. Most new arrivals still more than at the last inspection. Wakefield had to wait around 10 days to receive their first order from the prison shop which often Overall, just over two-thirds of prisoners created unnecessary problems, leading to reported reasonably positive treatment by bullying in some cases. However, where staff. In our survey, 68% of prisoners said prisoners could receive their first orders that most staff treated them with respect and promptly, such as at Dovegate and Lowdham 69% said that there were staff they could Grange, this reduced the risk of borrowing turn to if they had a problem. from other prisoners and getting into debt. The level and quality of consultation with Daily life prisoners varied considerably. Where there Apart from a few notable exceptions – such were meetings, these often did not take place as at Oakwood and Dovegate therapeutic regularly, and issues raised were usually community, where the environments were not addressed quickly enough. Where the good – most prisoners continued to experience arrangements worked well, this was often inadequate or poor living conditions. when senior staff were actively involved.

The prison was struggling with infestations of insects and vermin. A sign on one wing read, ‘Please ensure doors remain shut to prevent rats entering the wing!!!’… Despite recently engaging professional pest control services, rats, pigeons and cockroaches were still everywhere. Bedford

28 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Many prisons did not convene forums for Good practice in prisoner consultation prisoners from minority groups, and only The governor and her senior team were some had prisoner equality representatives. regularly available on the wings and during free-flow movement, which meant that There had been very limited consultation prisoners could quickly resolve minor for prisoners with protected characteristics issues without having to make formal and no prisoner equality representatives complaints. Isis or equality champions among staff. These gaps made it difficult for concerns to be voiced by prisoners. Hindley In our survey, only 28% of adult men who said they had made a formal complaint said it was handled fairly, and only 24% said it In our survey, almost a third of prisoners had been dealt with in seven days. Most were from a black or minority ethnic prisoner complaints were about domestic background. As in previous years, they matters, such as access to their stored reported a more negative experience than property. white prisoners about most areas of prison life. They told us that they felt marginalised, Equality and diversity work and that staff lacked awareness of different Prisons varied in the strategic emphasis cultures or failed to challenge inappropriate they gave to equality and diversity work. and racist behaviour. There had been progress at some prisons, with the work informed by a comprehensive Several prisoners told us that the treatment policy and supported by regular committee of ethnic minority prisoners varied across meetings and data analysis. However, in too wings, but no investigation was taking many prisons the work was underdeveloped place into these perceptions of inequitable or had lapsed, with limited resources, little treatment. The Mount input from senior management and not enough focus on practical outcomes for However, there were examples of promising prisoners. initiatives.

The strategic management of equality In response to the Lammy review,10 a had been neglected for too long and was quarterly race incentives and earned weak. The most recent bimonthly equality privileges (IEP) forum had been set up to meeting had not taken place and the address perceptions that the IEP scheme preceding meeting had been attended by might be treating black and minority ethnic only three staff members. Minutes showed prisoners unfairly. Attendance at the first a lack of focus on actions, with some being IEP forum had been good, and actions repeatedly carried over. Kirkham identified.Onley

Opportunities for prisoners to make At 31 December 2018, 8,677 male foreign complaints about their experience of nationals were held in prisons in England discrimination varied between prisons, and and Wales (11% of all male prisoners).11 standards of investigation and responses In April 2018, HMPPS published its model were inconsistent. Some prisons benefited for operational delivery, setting out good from quality assurance of discrimination practice guidance on the services and complaints from external organisations – activities prisons should deliver to foreign such as the Zahid Mubarek Trust – but most nationals. We found that support for foreign did not. nationals remained mixed. Some prisons,

10 Lammy, D. (2017). The Lammy Review: An independent review into the treatment of, and outcomes for, Black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. Available at https://www.basw.co.uk/system/files/resources/ basw_82100-3_0.pdf 11 Offender Management Statistics Quarterly: July to September 2018 and Prison population data tool. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/offender-management-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2018

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 29 SECTION THREE Men in prison

such as Wakefield and Featherstone, provided reasonable support while others, Reasonable adjustments had been made including Lowdham Grange, Wandsworth for prisoners who needed them, and there and Manchester, did not. Wing staff rarely was good cooperation between the prison used professional telephone interpreting and the health care provider to make sure services to communicate with non-English that these were made promptly and that speakers. While many foreign nationals could social care needs were met. Prisoners see Home Office immigration enforcement who were retired or unfit for work were not officers in their prison, they had little access locked up during the working day. Older to independent legal advice because of the prisoners were well provided for, with lack of public funding for this provision. age-specific activities and consultation with equality staff to address their needs. At Maidstone, one of two prisons that held Oakwood exclusively foreign nationals, work to prepare prisoners for their release, whether in the Generally, there were few activities UK or abroad, was more focused than in the specifically for older prisoners and past but there were still too many gaps in some prisons continued to keep retired meeting rehabilitation needs. prisoners locked up during the core day. At As of 31 December 2018, 13,474 young Manchester, we spoke to an 88-year-old who adult men aged 18 to 24 were held in adult was only unlocked for two hours most days. male prisons (17% of all male prisoners).12 Seven per cent of survey respondents said In our survey, they generally reported a less they had been in the armed services. Several positive experience of prison life than their prisons were developing work with this group older peers. They were often overrepresented of prisoners. on the lowest level of the incentives scheme and in disciplinary proceedings, and prisons were not investigating the underlying reasons Support for them was impressive and for this sufficiently. an enthusiastic officer held monthly meetings and had developed several However, at Peterborough, there was good support mechanisms, including community awareness of the distinct needs of this agencies such as the Royal British Legion age group, and Wandsworth provided a and SSAFA, the Armed Forces charity. promising course, ‘Hero’s Journey’, to help Wakefield younger prisoners change their behaviour. At the end of December 2018, the proportion A third of prisoners in our survey said they of male prisoners aged 50 or over had had a disability, and they reported a more increased to 17%.13 In our survey, older negative experience than those without a prisoners were more positive about much of disability across a wide range of questions. their experience of prison life, and we found For example, 36% of disabled prisoners said a few examples of good provision for this age that they felt unsafe at the time of the survey, group. double those without a disability. Some prisons, such as Wakefield and Manchester, used trained prisoner carers to help disabled prisoners with basic tasks. But despite efforts to provide reasonable adjustments and adapt cells, many prisons, especially locals, were not suitable to hold prisoners with mobility problems.

12 Ibid. 13 Ibid.

30 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

In 2018–19, most health services were We found a wheelchair user sharing a reasonably good and we highlighted 50 cell designed for one person with no instances of good practice, including 11 adaptations. His toilet lacked a lid, seat and for substance use services. However, there grip rails. Wandsworth were problems with cleanliness – 10 prisons failed to meet minimum standards of In our survey, 2% of prisoners in adult infection control compliance and cleanliness male prisons identified themselves as – and seven prisons had poor resuscitation transgender or transsexual. Most individuals equipment, which was a concern given the received support, but some prisons were increasing number of medical emergencies. not aware of the full extent of needs of these prisoners and had not yet identified and Parliamentary report on prison health addressed them. In 2018, HMI Prisons provided evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee Two prisoners identified as transgender inquiry into Prison Healthcare.14 Using in our survey, but they were not known to evidence from our reports published staff, and the prison had no experience of in 2017–18, we raised issues such as managing transgender prisoners. Isis the effect of staff shortages, insufficient training, limited time out of cell and Prisons were often unaware of the true restricted regimes on health outcomes number of gay, bisexual and other orientation for prisoners. We also expressed concern prisoners in their population, and the support about inadequate support and monitoring provided to this group was often limited. of prisoners at risk of self-harm, and However, Belmarsh was an example of how weaknesses in mental health provision, support could be provided; this included as well as failure to learn lessons from several campaigns to raise awareness of the incidents and deaths in custody. needs of gay and transgender prisoners. As in previous years, prisoners were Generally, there was an improvement generally well facilitated to practise their in health staffing levels, most staff felt religion. In our survey, 68% of adult men supported and a majority participated in with a religion said that their religious clinical and managerial supervision. beliefs were respected. Chaplaincies were All prisons provided new arrivals with an often involved in a wide range of activities initial health screening by a clinician but throughout the prison. only two-thirds offered a second follow-up assessment to help identify key health issues. Prison health services We continued to inspect health services We found improving health services for jointly with the Care Quality Commission older prisoners, with a growing awareness (CQC) in England and Healthcare of dementia, and patients with long-term Inspectorate Wales. This year we saw more conditions received good planned care. prisons breaching health regulations. This resulted in one warning notice and 16 The health care team had developed requirement notices to 10 of the 35 adult detailed care plans for patients with male prisons inspected, with four prisons long‑term conditions and challenging receiving more than one notice. behaviour to ensure good clinical outcomes. Nottingham

14 Available on the Committee’s website at: https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/ health-and-social-care-committee/inquiries/parliament-2017/prison-healthcare-inquiry-17-19/publications/

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 31 SECTION THREE Men in prison

We also reported on some of these Substance use developments in our thematic inspection of In almost a quarter of adult male prisons arrangements for prisoners with social care there was poor monitoring of patients during needs.15 drug and alcohol stabilisation – we noted this at Birmingham, Bedford, Chelmsford, Dental provision was improving, but waiting Humber, Manchester, Nottingham, Onley times remained excessive in nearly half of and Peterborough. This created significant prisons. At Maidstone, where some prisoners risks to patients withdrawing from alcohol. waited up to six months for a routine Ranby and Woodhill still did not offer a full appointment, the CQC issued a regulation range of opiate substitution therapy in line notice. with national guidelines. In over half the adult male prisons inspected, Psychosocial support for patients with we found a lack of assessment and substance use needs remained variable; treatment for prisoners with mental health, while a third of prisons did not deliver learning disabilities or emotional needs. adequate interventions, the rest provided an Many prisoners were held in conditions that excellent service. Positively, some prisons were in no way therapeutic, and which often provided drug-free, recovery-focused wings. clearly exacerbated their condition. We remained concerned about the Good practice in supporting drug continuing plight of prisoners experiencing recovery severe delays in transfer to secure mental The designated rehabilitative treatment/ health beds. In the vast majority of prisons, active citizenship unit provided a safe, the 14-day target for transfer was not met; positive and supportive culture that allowed one prisoner at Swinfen Hall had waited prisoners to address their substance use seven months before he was finally admitted. and focus on recovery. It was an excellent We took the unusual step of making a example of partnership working between recommendation about this issue directly to the prison and service providers, and the prisons minister following our inspection clearly improved outcomes for prisoners. of Wakefield. Stoke Heath An emerging theme this year was poor governance of medicines management, with The growing number of prisoners under the many prisons lacking on-site pharmacists influence of new psychoactive substances16 to provide oversight of medicines. We made had created an overwhelming pressure on 86 recommendations to improve the quality staff in some prisons, and support for users and safety of medicines management across was not always readily available. In some all 35 prisons inspected. Too often there prisons, prisoners were not always referred to was inconsistent supervision of medication psychosocial services following an incident. queues to prevent trading and bullying, no lockable storage for in-possession Nearly all prisons now provided naloxone to medication, and risk assessments of suitable patients on release to manage the prisoners for in‑possession medication not risk of substance use overdose, but Bedford, being completed or reviewed. Channings Wood, Hull, Humber, Onley, Peterborough and Wandsworth did not, which was a missed opportunity.

15 HMI Prisons and CQC (2018). Social care in prisons in England and Wales. A thematic report. Available at: www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/social-care-in-prisons-in-england-and-wales/ 16 See footnote 6.

32 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Too much time in cell, too little activity outside

Figure 6: Purposeful activity outcomes in establishments holding ¡¡ Activity outcomes for prisoners had declined adult and young adult men overall, and were good or reasonably good in only one-third of adult male prisons. Only two Good Reasonably Not Poor prisons had good activity outcomes. good sufficiently good ¡¡ Prisoners still spent too much time locked in Local prisons 0 3 4 7 their cells. Training prisons 2 2 6 4 ¡¡ Staff shortages in many prisons reduced High security prisons 0 1 1 0 prisoners’ access to a full regime and to education, work and other activities. Open prisons 0 3 0 0 Young adult prisons 0 0 1 0 ¡¡ Around half of prisons had too few activity places for the population, and three-quarters Therapeutic community 0 1 0 0 failed to fill or use their activity places Total 2 10 12 11 effectively. ¡¡ The overall effectiveness of education, skills Time unlocked reduced further and work had declined. During their time unlocked, prisoners are expected ¡¡ The use of education peer mentors continued to attend work, education and training, and use to increase and provided valuable support. this time constructively to engage with health care ¡¡ There was some encouraging use of prisoner and resettlement services, and take exercise. It is feedback in shaping education and training. also an opportunity for basic domestic tasks, such as showering, cleaning cells, eating meals and telephoning family and friends. We continued to find that prisoners spent far too long locked up, Outcome of previous recommendations and not able to access these services. We saw In the adult male prisons reported on in 2018–9, repeated examples of this leading to frustration, 40% of our previous recommendations in the boredom, greater use of illicit substances and often area of activity had been achieved, 16% partially deteriorating physical and mental health. achieved and 44% not achieved. We expect prisoners to be unlocked for at least Purposeful activity outcomes in adult male prisons 10 hours a day, but in our survey only 10% of had continued to deteriorate, with only 34% prisoners said that they were unlocked for this assessed as good or reasonably good this year. length of time, and nearly a quarter said they spent Local prisons continued to struggle the most, with less than two hours out of their cells on a weekday. seven of the 14 inspected this year achieving poor outcomes. Of most concern, however, was that this trend had reached training prisons where we would expect to find better outcomes; only four of the 14 inspected achieved reasonably good or good outcomes.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 33 SECTION THREE Men in prison

Figure 7: How long do you spend out of your cell on a weekday?

More than 10 hours out of cell Less than two hours out of cell (weekday) (%) (weekday) (%) Local prisons 3 37 Training prisons17 7 18 High security prisons 7 10 Open prisons 53 3 Average 10 24

Time unlocked was particularly poor for The impact of staff shortages prisoners in local prisons – in our survey The continuing reduction in prisoners’ time 37% said they spent less than two hours a unlocked and their access to a full regime day out of their cell, and only 3% reported was still mostly due to staff shortages. being out for more than 10 hours. This was worse than last year. In local prisons, such as Chronic and substantial staff shortages had Bedford, Belmarsh, Chelmsford, High Down, a serious impact on the prison’s ability to Birmingham and Wandsworth, substantial operate a full regime. A restricted regime numbers of prisoners spent more than 22 had been in place for three years, but hours locked in their cells. even this was reduced further almost daily. Woodhill In our survey, 47% prisoners said they usually spent less than two hours out of their cell on a typical weekday… Only 2% Prison regimes had also often become said they received the expected 10 hours a less predictable, which prisoners found frustrating and unsettling. Many prisons day out of cell. Belmarsh operated temporary restricted regimes to cope with this and ensure some reliability. There was evidence of better practice in Hull Although this assisted with predictability, it and Peterborough, both local prisons, where also meant that prisoners were often locked time unlocked was reasonably good. up at 6pm or earlier, affecting their access to the telephone and contact with their family. Even in training prisons the situation was However, in some prisons, such as Ranby, little better – only 6% of prisoners in category strong leadership and management had C and 14% in category B trainers said they prioritised prisoner time unlocked despite were unlocked for more than 10 hours. the difficulties, such as levels of violence and prisoners not willing to engage in the regime.

Using recreational time constructively Figure 8: Rates of association, use of gym and exercise in establishments holding adult and young adult men

Go on association more than Use the gym two or more Go outside for exercise more five times a week (%) times a week (%) than five times a week (%) Local prisons 44 38 49 Training prisons18 63 51 64 High security prisons 83 42 66 Open prisons 92 63 91 Average 59 46 60

17 Including the one young adult prison and one therapeutic community that we inspected. 18 Ibid.

34 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

All too often when prisoners were unlocked Good library provision was available in for association they had very little to do. most establishments, and in our survey nearly half of prisoners said they visited the library once a week or more. Many prison Most prisoners were not engaged in libraries championed recreational activities, activities and had… nothing purposeful particularly those supporting family ties, to do, spending most of their time milling through initiatives such as Storybook Dads around. Birmingham (where fathers can record a story for their children). They also supported literacy and A minority of prisons had introduced vocational training. innovative and creative ways for prisoners to spend their time. Opportunities for physical education can help with prisoners’ physical and mental well-being, as well as provide a chance to The extended range of creative gain vocational qualifications. Most prisons extracurricular activities embedded over had good facilities but, once again, staff the previous year were excellent and had shortages, including the redeployment of been accessed by many prisoners. Events PE staff to other duties, restricted prisoner included an impressive ‘Talent Unlocked’ access. evening, where prisoners had showcased their performing skills, as well as the first ‘TED Talk’ (a series of popular online talks Delivering learning and skills and work Our inspections of learning and skills and presented in an engaging style) in a British work in prisons are conducted in partnership prison, a talk from staff at the National with Ofsted (Office for Standards in Space Centre and a ‘Dragons’ Den’-style Education, Children’s Services and Skills) event. Leicester in England and Estyn in Wales. Both Ofsted and Estyn make assessments of learning and We expect prisoners to have the opportunity skills and work provision.19 for one hour a day in the open air, but most could still only have 30 minutes. Many This year, around 70% of English prisons outside exercise areas remained austere, were found to be less than good in their dirty and uninviting. Conflicting timetables overall effectiveness of providing education, also meant that prisoners sometimes had to skills and work, including 10 rated as choose between taking exercise outside or inadequate. We judged no prison as using the showers or telephones. outstanding although Oakwood, a large training prison, had some outstanding aspects.

Figure 9: Ofsted assessments in establishments holding adult and young adult men in England

Overall Achievements of Quality of Personal Leadership and effectiveness of prisoners engaged teaching, development management of education, skills in education, learning and and behaviour education, skills and work skills and work assessment and work Outstanding 0 0 0 1 1 Good 10 15 16 15 10 Requires improvement 15 14 16 15 15 Inadequate 10 6 3 4 9 Total 35 35 35 35 35

19 We did not publish inspection reports on any adult male prisons in Wales during the year.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 35 SECTION THREE Men in prison

Developments in prison education Prison staffing issues had reduced the Changes to prison education have been activities regime… education, skills and driven by the 2016 review of prison work activity had run for only 60% of the education by Dame Sally Coates20 and time in the previous 14 months. Swinfen Hall the prison education reform agenda, with governors empowered to control Following the pattern previously reported, the delivery of education and training in this year three-quarters of prisons again prisons. failed to use their activity places effectively, leaving prisoners without work, education A governor-led commissioning process for or training when they need not have been. education, work and training resulted in Poor attendance and punctuality of prisoners new prison education framework contracts in activities often went unchallenged by from April 2019. The new approach aims to prison staff, which failed to promote a good enable governors to provide education and work ethic. training programmes that give prisoners the skills that employers are looking for, and meet specific local labour market Only about half the prisoners attended their requirements. Governors will be held lessons regularly and a third failed to attend accountable for the quality of education scheduled prison work activities. Wing staff and training in their prison. did not succeed in ensuring that prisoners arrived on time at their activities. Hindley Although not fully implemented, the government’s Education and Employment Strategy (published in May 2018)21 aims to Leadership and management set each prisoner on a path to employment, Aside from overall effectiveness, leadership with prison education geared towards their and management was the area in our employment on release. This includes assessments where the highest number of the launch of the New Futures Network prisons were judged to be inadequate for the (supported by the Royal Society for the last two years. In these prisons, leaders and encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and managers had not prioritised education and Commerce, RSA), which identifies skills training and had made slow progress with gaps and works with employers to fill them. improving the provision.

Prison leaders and managers had made Too few places – and poorly used very slow progress in improving the overall In almost half the prisons, there were not effectiveness of education, skills and work enough education, skills and work activity since the previous inspection... [They] had places to cater for all prisoners throughout not created a culture which encouraged the week. This problem was prevalent across wing staff or prisoners to place a high value all types of prisons, including in training on education, skills or work or recognise prisons where less than half had sufficient it as an essential driver for rehabilitation. places. This left many prisoners unemployed Bedford – we found 250 prisoners unemployed at Humber, 300 at Chelmsford and over 500 at High Down. However, a minority of prisons, This was in stark contrast to the one prison such as Featherstone, had sufficient activity where leadership and management were places, which were used well. outstanding. In many prisons, chronic staff shortages and operational constraints led to reduced education and training provision.

20 Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524013/education-review-report. pdf 21 Ministry of Justice (2018). Education and Employment Strategy. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710406/education-and-employment-strategy-2018.pdf

36 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Prison and college leaders had dealt The prison had established three ‘employer successfully with almost all of the academies’ linked to vocational training areas for improvement identified at the offered at the establishment. Each previous inspection… The director… had employer had an onsite presence and established an institution-wide ethos that could ensure that prisoners received placed individual responsibility, respect bespoke training that would help them for others and active participation at its gain the skills necessary to work for the centre. As a result, prisoners benefited employer on release. Ranby from a regime that fully supported their rehabilitation and resettlement into the However, prisoners’ efforts to find jobs or community. Oakwood training on release were undermined by the decision to remove careers advice and The lack of oversight by prison leaders and guidance from prisons. managers of the provision of education, skills and work had exacerbated the decline Cut to careers service seen in the quality of teaching, learning and On 31 March 2018, the National Careers assessment. Service (NCS) in every prison in England was cancelled, with uncertainty as to what Leaders and managers had not would replace it. Careers advisers perform recognised that their quality improvement a valuable service in prisons – supporting arrangements were ineffective. They used prisoners to find employment through the quality improvement group (QIG) long-term planning and forging links with primarily as a forum to discuss operational outside employers. This cut was seemingly matters and did not focus systematically on made without any assessment of the tackling the weaknesses in the provision. impact it would have on the effectiveness Maidstone of a prison’s education, work and training provision in getting prisoners into training However, in some prisons, managers and work. involved and consulted prisoners on the delivery of education and work. The quality of teaching, learning and Prison managers recognised the value of assessment seeking the views and skills of prisoners The quality of teaching, learning and to help improve provision; prisoners had assessment in education, skills and started to contribute some constructive work‑related activities also declined and was judged inadequate in three prisons. ideas. Wandsworth In these prisons, teachers failed to use the information about prisoners’ existing Prisons varied hugely in their focus on knowledge and skills to plan learning employability and measures to support activities that challenged all learners, prisoners to progress to suitable further including the most able. Prisoners with education, training and employment on identified additional learning needs did release. In the better prisons, leaders and not always benefit from specialist learning managers had useful links with employers support to help them progress in their and other partners to ensure that the range lessons. There was often insufficient support and content of the provision aligned to in vocational and work-related activities local, regional and, where relevant, national to help prisoners further their English and priorities. mathematics skills. In many cases, the identification and recording of the full range of skills that learners developed in vocational training were weak.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 37 SECTION THREE Men in prison

In recent years we have reported a rise in the We assessed one prison as outstanding use of peer mentors, and this has continued. in the area of personal development and Peer mentors often provided support to behaviour of prisoners attending education, teachers and trainers, as well as positive role skills and work. models for other prisoners. The extent to which the establishment Peer mentors provided exceptional support was successful at developing prisoners’ and guidance for prisoners in vocational personal, social and employability skills and work settings. They encouraged men was outstanding. Prisoners enjoyed to improve their English and maths skills attending and participating in activities. alongside their work skills. Hull In learning sessions, they demonstrated an enthusiasm to learn and motivation to achieve. Their behaviour was exemplary. Outcomes Oakwood This year only 15 prisons delivered good or better achievements in education, skills and However, too often prisons did not offer work-related activities, and six were judged prisoners progression routes to the higher- inadequate in this area. Too few prisoners level qualifications required by employers. completed and achieved their qualifications Many prisoners took part in work that was successfully. Many made slow progress with mundane or not challenging enough to learning new skills and knowledge, and did support them with the development of their not receive accreditation for the vocational employability skills or to prepare them for skills they achieved. work after release. In the better performing prisons, such as Humber, prisoners who completed their learning courses did well in achieving their qualifications, particularly in English and mathematics.

38 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Progress on rehabilitation and release planning but problems remain

¡¡ There had been progress in this area, Outcome of previous recommendations but in a third of inspected prisons In the adult male prisons reported on in outcomes were still not good enough. 2018–19, 33% of our previous ¡¡ Most prisons made reasonable attempts recommendations in the area of to support prisoner contact with their rehabilitation and release planning had families. been achieved, 14% partially achieved and ¡¡ It was too early to assess the overall 54% not achieved. effectiveness of the new offender management in custody model, but Of the adult male establishments reported the prisoner keyworker element was on during the year, 63% of assessments promising. indicated outcomes for prisoners that were ¡¡ Offender management work more good or reasonably good. generally was often under-resourced and remained inconsistent at best. ¡¡ Recategorisation work was usually up Figure 10: Rehabilitation and release planning outcomes in to date and of reasonable quality, and establishments holding adult and young adult males home detention curfew procedures were Good Reasonably Not Poor generally efficient. good sufficiently ¡¡ Many prisoners were unable to complete good programmes to address offending Local prisons 1 8 4 1 behaviour needs. Training 0 7 6 1 ¡¡ There had been some improvements prisons in release planning, but far too many High security 0 2 0 0 prisoners were released without prisons accommodation. Open prisons 0 3 0 0 ¡¡ A thematic review of the management Young adult 0 0 1 0 of sex offenders, carried out jointly with prisons HMI Probation, found that there was not Therapeutic 0 1 0 0 enough work to reduce reoffending in community prison or after release. Total 1 21 11 2

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 39 SECTION THREE Men in prison

Children and families and contact with Many prisoners did not have their offending- the outside world related needs assessed and, as a result, Maintaining contact with family and friends they moved on to other prisons without a is a central element in rehabilitation and sentence plan or became stuck at a local effective resettlement. Most prisons facilitated prison unable to progress or undertake risk regular family visits and made efforts to reduction work. At Woodhill, for example, provide a family-friendly environment where almost half of all prisoners eligible to prisoners could undertake activities with their progress were without a current assessment children, such as arts, crafts and homework. or sentence plan. This lack of assessment Some prisons made good attempts to support was a concern given the number of prisoners prisoners in strengthening relationships with who presented a high risk of harm to others, their families. including those who had committed sex offences (see box p.42). A homework club was run once a month in Some prisoners were moved into open the education department, which enabled prisons without an up-to-date risk assessment prisoners to help their children complete or current risk management plan. their school work, while a soft play morning meant prisoners could interact with … 20 prisoners did not have an initial their younger children in a less formal assessment and in 44 cases it was out of environment. The Family Bookshare date and needed reviewing. Of these, 16 scheme, linked to family days, allowed had been at the establishment for more prisoners to record a book chosen by their than three months, so their outstanding child, which would be sent to them. Hull assessment potentially delayed the start of their ROTL [release on temporary licence] However, some prisons, such as The Mount, progression plan. Kirkham linked attendance at a family day to the privileges scheme, with only prisoners on the highest privileges level able to take part; this The quality of offender supervisor disadvantaged many prisoners and penalised contact their children. HMPPS started to roll out the offender management in custody (OMiC)22 model In too many prisons we found late starts during 2018–19, starting with the to visit sessions, which shortened the time introduction of keyworkers (a prison officer prisoners had with their families or friends. assigned to each prisoner to provide regular Visitors were still experiencing problems support and engagement). This was a booking visits in prisons such as Belmarsh promising development that had significantly and Wandsworth. A few establishments increased the time that staff could spend had improved the visits area to make the developing constructive relationships with experience more welcoming. prisoners, but it was too early to judge its overall effectiveness, especially in engaging Reducing risk, rehabilitation and prisoners in their rehabilitation and risk progression reduction. The problems identified in offender management in previous years had The inconsistency of offender management continued. Few prisons carried out a prisoner work was still a major problem. Offender needs analysis to inform planning for supervisors often had little time to spend with reducing risk and rehabilitation. Where such prisoners through their sentence. We saw an analysis had been completed, it was often widespread difficulties with the recruitment not comprehensive and did not make use of of National Probation Service (NPS) staff, OASys (offender assessment system) data. and uniformed offender supervisors were still regularly cross-deployed to other duties.

22 Introduced from 2017, the new model is being implemented in stages, starting with new main grade prison officers to help undertake key work sessions with prisoners. The second phase, core offender management and the introduction of prison offender managers (POM), is being introduced gradually during 2019.

40 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Prisoner progression There was no longer a dedicated team Recategorisation work was generally up to of offender supervisors and officers were date and of reasonably good quality. Some rarely allocated to the role on consecutive prisons, for example Wandsworth, had days, which affected continuity of worked hard to improve recategorisation, provision… the department had lost but most still faced the challenge of moving almost 45% of its staffing resource to prisoners (particularly sex offenders) on to redeployment since April 2017. Long Lartin lower category prisons due to the lack of places nationally. Indeterminate sentences New assessment processes for home We found some encouraging work with detention curfew (HDC) ‘tagging’, which prisoners on indeterminate sentences in came into operation in January 2018, had prisons such as The Mount, but this was not been effective in increasing the number of the case in most prisons. In prisons including prisoners released on HDC and on time. Belmarsh and Woodhill, we once again Procedures had been streamlined after came across many prisoners serving an it had been recognised that ‘the previous indeterminate sentence for public protection process had become overly bureaucratic 23 (IPP) held well beyond their tariff dates. and tended to frustrate the objectives of the scheme.’24 Some prisoners were not released Protecting the public from harm on HDC because of factors outside the Most prisons had an inter-departmental prison’s control. risk management team meeting to discuss prisoners posing a medium to high risk of Delays in release were often caused by harm six months before their release. In issues… such as very short sentences some cases, these were poorly attended and a failure by the community-based and lacked a clarity of purpose, which in offender manager to confirm the suitability turn undermined robust risk management of the address to which the prisoner was planning for release and information-sharing to be released… 15 prisoners were still in across the prison. prison, despite being approved for release In a few prisons, prisoners subject to multi- on HDC, owing to the lack of places in Bail agency public protection arrangements Accommodation and Support Services (MAPPA) had still not had their management (BASS) hostels. High Down levels confirmed when they were only a few weeks from release, rather than at least six months beforehand. Addressing offending behaviour Prisoners often faced long delays in transferring to prisons that ran relevant … there was little evidence of pre-release courses. Even if they were in a prison that risk management planning with the delivered the programmes they needed, offender manager in the community… they were often assessed and found to be 50 prisoners who had served a sentence of unsuitable for them. This was particularly over 12 months were due to be released; evident with sex offenders. 24 of these had been assessed as presenting high or very high risk of harm, … 48% of sexual offenders were not yet a clear MAPPA management level had suitable for accredited programmes, for been set in only 13. Woodhill example, because of the length of time left to serve or because they could not work in groups. Hull

23 A tariff is the minimum time to serve, set by the court, before prisoners on IPPs can be considered for release. 24 HMPPS Prison Service Instruction 01/2018. ‘Home Detention Curfew Process’. Available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/ downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-2018/psi-pi-01-2018-home-curfew.pdf

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 41 SECTION THREE Men in prison

There was often no alternative offence- focused work (whether one-to-one or in Sex offender thematic groups) for prisoners deemed too low risk for In the summer of 2018, we carried out accredited programmes for sex offenders. a joint thematic inspection with HMI They were frequently released having done Probation. The report, Management and no structured work to explore why they supervision of men convicted of sexual 25 offended. For all categories of offenders, offences, was published in January 2019. some prisons found it difficult to achieve The inspection found that the overall their programme completion targets. quality of offender management work in custody was poor. Weaknesses included: Two nationally accredited offending ¡¡ Offender supervisors did not always know behaviour programmes were still being who was on their caseload and many delivered: the thinking skills programme described their approach as ‘firefighting’, (TSP) and Resolve, designed to address and ‘reactive rather than proactive’. violence and aggression. The programme ¡¡ Accredited programmes were too often team had struggled with staffing and seen as the only way of working with delivering programmes during the previous prisoners convicted of sex offences. Too year. Ninety-one men had been scheduled little work was done to reduce the risk of to complete one of the courses… Only 29 reoffending for those not participating in had completed and no TSP courses had a programme. been delivered. The Mount ¡¡ Too few prison officers were trained and supported to identify risk of harm or to deliver suitable interventions. There were some new programmes aimed ¡¡ In many cases, prisoners who fell under at prisoners convicted of sexual or violent MAPPA level 1 (the majority of sex offences; positively, these now included offenders) did not have their risk levels some targeted at those in denial of their and needs adequately reviewed before offending behaviour. release. ¡¡ Inadequate joint work between NPS staff in the community and prison offender management teams resulted in poor risk management and release plans. ¡¡ Some sex offenders were released from training prisons that did not have community rehabilitation company (CRC)26 resettlement and through- the‑gate services. ¡¡ Effective release planning for sex offenders was compromised by the lack of suitable accommodation (including places in approved premises), and we found some examples of budget hotels being used to accommodate prisoners on release.

25 HMI Prisons and HMI Probation (2019). Management and supervision of men convicted of sexual offences. Available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/inspections/sexualoffencesthematic/ 26 Since May 2015, rehabilitation services, both in custody and after release, have been organised through CRCs which are responsible for work with medium- and low-risk offenders. The NPS has maintained responsibility for high- and very high- risk offenders.

42 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

Release planning Accommodation Joint work between CRCs and offender Homelessness on release from prison is a management units (OMUs) had improved in serious and rapidly growing problem, which some prisons, such as Kirkham. However, is known to be associated with a higher risk this was not consistent; for example, at of reoffending. Government figures show Oakwood CRC staff told us their work with that fewer than half of prisoners released all prisoners was limited by the terms of the between October 2016 and January 2018 contract. went out to settled accommodation, while there had been a 20-fold increase in rough There was sometimes a lack of joint work sleeping on release.27 Our inspection findings between the CRC and OMU offender reflected this concerning picture. Few supervisor in setting up the prisoner’s release released prisoners found accommodation plan, which was a weakness, particularly in unless it was with family or friends – despite high risk of harm cases. the efforts of specialist agencies. Most prisoners now had a resettlement plan prepared by the CRC. However, the Despite the hard work of the housing quality was still often limited, with no support advisers, 50% of the prisoners released for perpetrators of domestic violence or during the previous six months had said prisoners involved in sex working, and little that they would be homeless or only to address education, drugs and alcohol, had temporary accommodation to go to. mental health or relationship issues. Peer High Down workers provided access to some support. Similarly, at The Mount, about a quarter The Resettlement and Advice Line of released prisoners were homeless, and Peer Helpline (RALPH) was a despite support from St Mungo’s, and at telephone helpline managed by prisoner Peterborough 29% were released without peer workers. It was highly effective in a known address, despite the efforts of St promoting access to resettlement help, Giles Trust. Both agencies gave homeless alongside answering a range of other prisoners a community contact to help with queries presented by prisoners, and was emergency accommodation. However, there well used, dealing with about 215 queries a was no post-release follow-up to establish week. Oakwood if prisoners had subsequently obtained sustainable accommodation (lasting 12 The quality of CRC work in the weeks leading weeks or more). up to release was variable but it was good in some prisons, such as at Spring Hill, Hindley and Leicester. Some prisons were developing community drop-in centres (usually in the visitors’ centre) to help prisoners who had been released.

After release, prisoners could receive help and advice from the Outside Links facility, which helped them with ongoing difficulties and supported successful resettlement. Peterborough

27 ‘Homelessness on release from prison by quarter’. Freedom of Information Request, 15 September 2018; response 27 September 2018. Available at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/homelessness_on_release_from_ pri#incoming-1240602

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 43 SECTION THREE Men in prison

Northern Ireland inspection We continue to inspect prisons in Northern Ireland by invitation from the Criminal Justice Inspectorate Northern Ireland (CJINI). These inspections are conducted jointly with CJINI and other partner inspectorates in Northern Ireland. In April 2018, we inspected Maghaberry Prison. Maghaberry is a very complex prison, holding remand, determinate and indeterminate sentence male prisoners, as well as ‘separated paramilitary prisoners’. When we conducted a full unannounced inspection of the prison in May 2015, we had found it to be unsafe, unstable and disrespectful. Following that inspection we made nine high-level recommendations to address these deficits, and we followed these up to assess progress at a further full inspection in January 2016, and two subsequent low-impact visits to the prison in September 2016 and April 2017. It was, therefore, encouraging that at the inspection in April 2018 we found that outcomes for prisoners had improved in many areas. Violence had reduced considerably, living conditions were better and the regime was delivered consistently, with enhanced opportunities for prisoners. Resettlement work remained a strength. Nevertheless, we still had major concerns about the care provided to prisoners vulnerable to self-harm and suicide.

44 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 45 4 Women in prison SECTION FOUR Women in prison

This section reviews three inspections of Outcomes in the three women’s prisons we women’s prisons – Low Newton, Send and inspected continued to be generally better Styal. The findings reported are based on than we see in many male prisons: all were Expectations: Criteria for assessing the judged as good or reasonably good in the treatment of and conditions for women areas of safety, respect and resettlement. in prisons, published in June 2014. However, purposeful activity had deteriorated from good to not sufficiently good at Send, ¡¡ We judged outcomes against safety to and from good to reasonably good at Styal. be good or reasonably good in the three prisons, but the availability of drugs was Outcome of previous recommendations a problem. In the three women’s prisons reported on in ¡¡ Staff-prisoner relationships were a real 2018–19: strength, and support for prisoners in ¡¡ 54% of our previous recommendations personal crisis was good overall. in safety had been achieved, 17% ¡¡ Outcomes for prisoners in purposeful partially achieved and 29% not activity were too variable; learning and achieved skills provision was not sufficiently good ¡¡ 51% of our previous recommendations at one prison. in respect had been achieved, 11% ¡¡ Offender management work needed partially achieved and 38% not to improve, and too many prisoners achieved were released without sustainable ¡¡ 53% of our previous recommendations accommodation. in purposeful activity had been ¡¡ Resettlement work was often supported achieved, 35% partially achieved and by positive projects to address trauma 12% not achieved and abuse, but work to promote family ¡¡ 59% of our previous recommendations ties needed further attention. in resettlement had been achieved, 14% partially achieved and 27% not achieved.

Figure 11: Outcomes in inspections of women’s prisons reported on in 2018–19

Safety Respect Purposeful activity Resettlement Low Newton Reasonably good Good Good Reasonably good Send Good Good Not sufficiently good Good Styal Good Reasonably good Reasonably good Good

Figure 12: Outcome changes from previous inspection of women’s prisons (3)

3

3 3 3 2 2

Declined 1 Unchanged 1 Improved Number of HPAs declined/unchanged/improved

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Safety Respect Purposeful activity Resettlement

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 47 SECTION FOUR Women in prison

Strategic context Relatively few prisoners said they felt unsafe. In April 2018, the management of prisoners Levels of violence continued to be much in women’s prisons was restructured, with lower than in men’s prisons and most was the Ministry of Justice taking on strategic minor. Data collection and analysis of safer policy responsibility and HMPPS overseeing custody information were good at each the operational delivery of policies. prison, and there had been some innovative work to support prisoner well-being. At Low In June 2018, the government published Newton, many staff and a small number of its Female Offender Strategy.28 The strategy prisoners had received trauma-informed aims to see fewer women coming into training (to enable them to respond contact with the criminal justice system effectively to the effects of trauma), and and sent to custody, particularly for short prisoner welfare representatives had been sentences, and a higher proportion managed trained to provide additional support. in the community. It also aims to improve conditions for those in custody, and sets Management of antisocial behaviour was out plans to pilot five ‘residential prisoners’ reasonably good. Send had introduced centres’ across England and Wales. We challenge, support and intervention plans welcomed publication of the strategy, and (CSIP),29 an improved approach to tackling would like to see continuous assessment antisocial behaviour that placed greater from HMPPS on its overall effectiveness. emphasis on addressing the prisoner’s underlying problems. Incentives to promote New Expectations positive behaviour were used effectively at Send. During 2019–20, we will be carrying out a complete review of our Expectations for Vouchers for Sendsations [a clothing shop prisoners in women’s prisons. The review, in the prison] and for the hairdressers were the first since the first edition published in valued by women and were used effectively 2014, will be undertaken in consultation as competition prizes to promote positive with a wide range of stakeholders. It will behaviour. Send aim to update our criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for prisoners in women’s prison in light of changes such as Levels of self-harm were very high and had the reduced number of places, an increase increased throughout the women’s estate by in complex cases and a rise in mental 24% in 2018.30 However, a small number of health needs. prisoners often accounted for a large number of these incidents, with an estimated 8.3 incidents per individual,31 which reflected the Key inspection findings complex needs of those in women’s prisons. Prisoners coming into women’s prisons Patterns of self-harm were well analysed in continued to report a very high level of each prison, and the use of assessment, problems, such as worries about money, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) case housing, physical and mental health, and management for at‑risk prisoners was good substance use; at Styal, for example, 95% overall. of prisoners in our survey said that they had problems when they arrived. Reception and first night processes for new arrivals were reasonably good, including safety interviews.

28 Ministry of Justice (2018). Female Offender Strategy. Available at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/719819/female-offender-strategy.pdf 29 See footnote 5. 30 Ministry of Justice (2019). Safety in Custody Statistics, England and Wales: Deaths in Prison Custody to March 2019, Assaults and Self-Harm to December 2018. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/safety-in-custody-quarterly- update-to-december-2018. 31 Ibid.

48 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FOUR Women in prison

Staff–prisoner relationships were good in Initial ACCT assessments were all three prisons and had a positive impact comprehensive and reviews took place on across all aspects of prison life. Styal had a time. We saw positive examples of families very strong focus on improving decency, but invited into reviews and, in one case, the while most staff were respectful and caring husband of a woman in custody for the first a small number were less engaged with the time. Styal prisoners. The management of equality and diversity work was generally improving. There were some positive initiatives to Health provision and governance were support prisoners’ well-being. reasonably good in all three prisons, and most prisoner needs were met. In our survey, Women were given cards they could slip 67% of prisoners said they had mental under their cell doors at night if they health problems, and we found good support needed support and wished to contact staff for them. without alerting other prisoners. Low Newton Patient-led initiatives, such as the hearing The availability of drugs was a problem in voices group, the Recovery Café and the two of the three prisons, most significantly Inspire group, encouraged women to be at Low Newton where it was perceived to be involved in their own recovery, helping to growing and where drug supply reduction boost their self-esteem and confidence. work was not robust enough. There was Low Newton good practice and innovation in psychosocial support at Send and Styal. However, in two of the prisons prisoners who needed to be transferred to secure mental Women could access a wide range of drug health units waited far too long – up to 15 and alcohol interventions at different levels months for one case at Low Newton. of intensity. Peer support, mutual aid and service user involvement were an integral Both Send and Low Newton had problems part of service provision and development. with the supply and management of Send medicines, which compromised continuity of care and patient safety. This triggered Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulation notices Most prisoners with drug and/or alcohol at both sites. Dental provision was good at problems were given good support in their Styal and Low Newton, but prisoners at Send early days but some at Styal were not could wait up to seven months for some effectively monitored during their period routine care. of stabilisation. At Low Newton and Styal, prescribing was not based on an individual Time out of cell was very good in all three approach, so did not provide continuity and prisons, with prisoners spending on average support. nine hours a day out of their cells. At Send, most could have over 10 hours a day out of Living conditions for prisoners were good their cell from Monday to Thursday, and over and mostly clean, but at Low Newton some nine hours from Friday to Sunday. prisoners were sharing cells designed for one. Ofsted rated the overall effectiveness of learning, skills and work provision in two of the prisons as good. We generally found reliable regimes, sufficient activity places and good quality teaching. Managers had a clear vision for learning, skills and work provision, supported by good partnership working.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 49 SECTION FOUR Women in prison

The quality of prisoners’ resettlement plans Leaders and managers had successfully remained mixed. Most resettlement provision developed the learning, skills and work was good, but the number of prisoners provision to meet the needs of the women released without suitable and sustainable at the prison, focusing particularly well accommodation was a concern. Styal on their empowerment, employability and estimated that only 65% left the prison with enterprise skills. Low Newton sustainable accommodation (against a target of 85%). However, Send lacked a robust and The range of accredited programmes was well‑informed strategic plan to develop the limited but some prisons had developed learning, skills and work offered, to maximise non-accredited interventions to address training and learning opportunities and give offending behaviour. Low Newton offered prisoners better opportunities to develop the comprehensive Primrose programme, their personal and employability skills, and consisting of tailored interventions for those gain qualifications that would be useful on with very complex needs. release. Send and Styal had an impressive range of The quality of offender management work support for prisoners who had experienced was too variable across all three prisons, abuse. and offender supervisors had limited contact with their prisoners, particularly in low and medium risk of harm cases. Risk Children and families management planning was not always Support to help prisoners maintain contact of good enough quality, and prisoners with their families and friends continues to subject to multi-agency public protection be particularly important in women’s prisons, arrangements (MAPPA) did not always but is often made harder because so many have their management levels confirmed far are held a long way from home. The support enough ahead of release. However, at Low available varied from prison to prison. Newton, the senior probation officer regularly Late starts to some visits sessions were an reviewed risk management plans for all avoidable frustration but most sessions high and very high risk of harm prisoners provided a positive experience for families, to ensure those subject to MAPPA were including children. However, not all prisoners identified early enough. received visits.

Styal had developed an innovative scheme Not enough was known about the reasons to support prisoners who were highly likely to for the lack of visits or how to address reoffend. the impact this had on women and their families. Low Newton Managers had identified 20 women who returned to the prison repeatedly There was little use of other means for and prioritised them for high intensity prisoners to maintain contact with their multidisciplinary casework, both inside the families, such as video-calling. prison and beyond. Records indicated an impressive level of continuing support. Styal

The use of release on temporary licence continued but had reduced in two prisons as more prisoners were released on home detention curfew. Styal had developed an open unit outside the secure perimeter that allowed prisoners to make a gradual transition to release.

50 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FOUR Women in prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 51 5 Children in custody SECTION FIVE Children in custody

This section draws on four inspections of young offender institutions (YOIs) holding Outcome of previous recommendations boys aged 15 to 18 and four inspections In the YOIs reported on in 2018–19: of three secure training centres (STCs) ¡¡ 54% of our previous recommendations holding children (boys and girls) aged in the area of safety had been achieved, 12 to 18. Inspections took place jointly 7% partially achieved and 39% not with Ofsted (Estyn in Wales), the Care achieved Quality Commission and, from September ¡¡ 38% of our previous recommendations 2018, HMI Probation. All the findings in the area of respect had been from inspections in this section are achieved, 18% partially achieved and based on Expectations for children and 44% not achieved young people, published in June 2012, ¡¡ 53% of our previous recommendations and the framework for inspecting STCs, in the area of purposeful activity had published in February 2014.32 been achieved, 20% partially achieved and 27% not achieved Young offender institutions ¡¡ 45% of our previous recommendations in the area of resettlement had been ¡¡ We found improvement in outcomes in achieved, 13% partially achieved and the YOI estate in all of our four healthy 43% not achieved. prison tests, with most improvement in respect and purposeful activity. ¡¡ There had been some positive initiatives and improvements in behaviour management, but these had not yet been embedded and the number of violent incidents remained very high. ¡¡ Time out of cell was still not good enough for most children in YOIs, but when they attended education or training the provision was mostly of good quality. ¡¡ Despite the efforts of resettlement staff, some children were still released to unsuitable accommodation – or no accommodation at all.

Figure 13: Outcomes in YOIs inspected in 2018–1933

Safety Respect Purposeful activity Resettlement Feltham A Reasonably good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Reasonably good Parc Reasonably good Good Good Reasonably good Werrington Reasonably good Good Reasonably good Good Wetherby Not sufficiently good Reasonably good Reasonably good Good Keppel Unit Good Good Reasonably good Good

32 The December 2018 inspection of Medway piloted a new Ofsted inspection framework. 33 There were separate assessments for the Keppel Unit at Wetherby, making five sets of assessments for the four inspections.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 53 SECTION FIVE Children in custody

Figure 14: Outcomes changes from previous inspections of YOIs (5)34

4 4 4 3.5

3 3 3

2.5

2 2 2 Declined 1.5 Unchanged Improved 1 1 1

Number of HPAs declined/unchanged/improved 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 Safety Respect Purposeful activity Resettlement

Early days in custody While children were still spending too long In our survey, 74% of children said they felt locked in cells during their early days in safe on their first night in custody. While we custody, there was evidence of good practice identified some improvements across the in their reception, and thorough induction. estate in this area, there were also concerns. Most first night interviews took place in private, and staff requested information from Transport arrangements between court and a wide range of sources on children new to custody continued to be a serious issue, with custody. children still travelling alongside adults. Safeguarding In our survey, 37% of boys said that they Most establishments demonstrated travelled in the same transport as adults, well-established child protection and which was inappropriate and contributed to safeguarding procedures. They had good late arrivals because adult prisoners were links with local safeguarding children dropped off first.Wetherby and Keppel boards, as well as multidisciplinary meetings attended by staff from all areas. Most staff Arrivals in establishments could be late, were aware of safeguarding processes and limiting screening processes in reception were confident in raising issues. However, with the risk that information could be safeguarding meetings needed to be more missed. More specifically, at Parc we found action-focused. some delays in HMPPS categorisation of restricted-status children35 entering custody – many had to wait up to a week for a decision and were unable to speak to their families during this time, even under supervision. This caused considerable distress to children entering custody.

34 There were separate assessments for the Keppel Unit at Wetherby, making five sets of assessments for the four inspections. 35 Children whose escape would present a serious risk to the public and who are required to be held in designated secure accommodation.

54 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody

Inquiry into child sexual abuse in We observed good quality interactions custody between staff and children who were being HMI Prisons gave written and oral monitored on ACCTs and children spoke evidence to the Independent Inquiry into positively about the care they received from Child Sexual Abuse, which published its staff. Feltham A investigation report on Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions: 2009– Staff at Werrington had a good 2017 in February 2019.36 understanding of the potential impact of receiving a long sentence on children’s Our evidence, based on our inspections, emotional well-being. However, across the pointed to some delays in application of estate, children on ACCTs spent too much child protection systems, and the need for time locked up, and overnight checks on child sexual abuse in custody to be seen them were timed too predictably. in the context of the wider experience of children. We consistently find that Behaviour management, violence and institutions holding children are not safe enough. The everyday nature of violence antisocial behaviour While violence and poor behaviour remained and intimidation affects the likelihood everyday features, there had been some that children will trust the institution to improvements in practice to tackle them protect them if they report sexual abuse since our thematic inspection into behaviour from other children or staff. We also raised management published in March 2018.37 the need to build caring and effective relationships between staff and children to address children’s reluctance to raise Assaults on boys had reduced by a third concerns about victimisation. and assaults on staff had reduced by more than 80%. This was a significant achievement given the complex population. Suicide and self-harm prevention All incidents were investigated and There had been no self-inflicted deaths in an impressive team of trained officers YOIs during 2018–19, and none since January facilitated some effective conflict resolution. 2012. Levels of self-harm had remained the Feltham A same at Wetherby and Werrington and were lower than other establishments. They had However, many children continued to feel decreased at both Feltham and Parc, but unsafe. In our survey, 35% of children said remained high on the Keppel Unit, reflecting they had felt unsafe in their current YOI and its more vulnerable population. 12% said they felt unsafe at the time of the Generally, we found good, comprehensive inspection. and multidisciplinary application of Most behaviour management strategies assessment, care in custody and teamwork had made a welcome shift towards instilling (ACCT) case management for children at risk. a reward-led culture to encourage good For example, at Werrington duty governors behaviour. In the incentives and earned carried out daily quality assurance of ACCTs privileges scheme, more children had and the safeguarding team followed up achieved gold standard and more quickly any identified weaknesses. Children at risk than previously. These positive initiatives of self‑harm were generally positive about needed to be embedded more widely. their care.

36 Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (2019). Sexual Abuse of Children in Custodial Institutions: 2009–2017 Investigation Report. Available at https://www.iicsa.org.uk/reports/cici 37 HMI Prisons (2018). Incentivising and promoting good behaviour. Available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/ hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/03/Incentivising-and-promoting-good-behaviour-Web-2018.pdf

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 55 SECTION FIVE Children in custody

Bullying, however, remained a serious We remained concerned that staff use of issue, with some establishments having body-worn cameras was not yet consistent no arrangements to identify bullying and across the estate and had even declined in intimidation or thefts of property bought from some establishments, despite the safeguards the prison shop. There was also an absence they offer for staff and children. of adequate formal support for victims. Nonetheless, we did identify good practice The use of pain-inducing techniques at Parc. in the children’s estate is also still a concern. In October 2018, the Ministry of Justice announced a review into the Unit staff were alert to signs of bullying and use of pain‑inducing techniques, to intimidation… Staff had identified concerns be led by Charlie Taylor. HMI Prisons about canteen purchases and routinely provided evidence from our thematic and marked goods to provide evidence of theft. establishment inspections to inform the Parc review. Among other points, we stressed the need to focus on de-escalating incidents to The enhanced community units at Feltham, reduce the requirement to use force. The Wetherby and Werrington were also following is an instance where staff used encouraging responsible behaviour and a restraint rather than attempting to de- better sense of community. escalate the situation.

Use of force In one case that we reviewed a boy had In our survey, 49% of children said that been required to move cell because his they had been physically restrained through behaviour had been poor the previous minimising and managing physical restraint night. Staff entered the cell and the boy (MMPR) while in custody. Use of force had said he did not want to move. With little increased at Werrington, Wetherby and on discussion or negotiation, and with no the Keppel Unit. At some establishments present threat to anyone, the boy was there was evidence of poor de-escalation restrained… nobody had prepared the cell techniques. However, we also saw many he was moving to and as a result he was cases where staff intervened to protect held under full restraint for several minutes. children from serious harm, and use of force There was no attempt to de-escalate. had decreased at Feltham and Parc. Wetherby and Keppel Governance of use of force continued to show improvements during 2018–19. Segregation and separation Use of segregation and separation varied, A weekly MMPR review meeting was and had started to rise again after the chaired by the governor with an impressive fall we noted last year. Its use remained multi-disciplinary attendance by managers, commendably low at Parc and had reduced health care, psychology, safeguarding at Wetherby, where it was restricted to staff, child protection coordinators and children who displayed the most challenging a member of the Youth Custody Service. behaviour. However, it had increased at All incidents of force were reviewed using Werrington, with an average stay of eight CCTV or body camera footage and the days in the unit. MMPR coordinator provided a detailed overview. Feltham A The regime was impoverished and there was not enough in place to mitigate the harmful effects of long periods of isolation. Werrington

56 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody

Segregation units still provided generally grim Diversity living conditions, and we saw stark, dirty Strategic management of equality and and poorly furnished units at Feltham (now diversity work had improved. Feltham decommissioned). Despite this, governance had robust systems to investigate all of children on segregation units was discrimination complaints but Wetherby generally good, and relationships between had no dedicated resource for this, which staff and children were mostly positive. affected the timeliness of investigations. Consultation with minority groups was Significant improvements had been increasing but was not comprehensive made to the segregation unit… A new anywhere. proactive management team were based full time on the unit working alongside About half the children who responded to other departments, including a dedicated our survey were from a black or minority psychology team. There was a clear focus ethnic background. They were less likely on reintegration and regular unit meetings than white children – 59% compared with were held to implement and improve the 73% – to report that most staff treated them with respect, and only 56%, compared with segregation strategy. Wetherby and Keppel 81%, said they could shower daily. Only 51% of Muslim children said that staff treated Feltham had made notable improvements them with respect, compared with 70% of in the management of children who were non-Muslims. separated on normal location, who could access more time out of their cell each day. Children with disabilities were also less likely However, children separated on normal than those without to say that most staff had location generally received far less time out treated them with respect (51% compared of cell than their fellow residents. with 69%). They were more likely to say they had felt unsafe (52% compared with 31%). Living conditions and relationships Living conditions remained inconsistent, Health care both between establishments and within Health care provision was consistently them, but some had made efforts to improve good and child-focused on all sites, with cleanliness and the condition of communal frequent examples of good practice. Clinical areas. However, we continued to find toilets governance and partnership working with no seats or adequate screening, and too were effective. We commended primary many dirty cells. Children’s access to daily care, dentistry, pharmacy and medicines showers varied, but in our survey 69% said management services. Feltham allowed they could shower every day. children to order their own prescriptions, which was innovative and promoted personal Access to telephones also varied, with in-cell responsibility. However, there were difficulties provision at Parc, but the use of communal in getting children to appointments on time telephones at other sites depended on the at Wetherby and Feltham. regime and the prison’s ability to provide it. Wetherby had introduced mobile trolley [Health care] did-not-attend rates were too phones. high (35% from June to November 2017) Staff-child relationships were generally because not enough custody officers were positive, patient and caring in all the available to escort the boys. The clinical establishments and notably at Parc, where time wasted was unacceptable. Feltham A 82% of children in our survey said that most staff treated them with respect.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 57 SECTION FIVE Children in custody

Mental health provision was good. Facilities for every child in their care. Feltham and varied, with some prisons having inpatient Wetherby averaged seven hours and Keppel units, but the standard of care was eight, which at weekends was reduced consistent. Prison managers in Feltham to as low as four hours in the latter two. frequently used the inpatient unit to hold During our roll checks, we found 17% to children for non-clinical reasons, which 20% of children at Feltham, Wetherby and disrupted the care provided for those who Werrington locked up during the day, when needed it. More positively, a mental health we would expect them to be taking part in practitioner at Feltham saw all victims of education and activities. assaults and attended ACCT reviews. In our survey, only 41% of children at Time out of cell Feltham said that they had daily association with others, but the figure at all other sites Time out of cell for most children had was much higher. Time in the open air also improved, but only Werrington and Parc varied, from only 43% of children at Wetherby achieved our expectation of 10 hours a and 55% at Feltham saying they had daily day out of cell – and this was not the case exercise outside, to 79% at Werrington.

Taking part in activities Figure 15: Ofsted assessments in YOIs holding children 2018–1938

Overall effectiveness Outcomes for Quality of Personal Leadership and of learning and skills children and learning development management and work young people skills Outstanding 0 0 0 0 0 Good 1 1 1 1 1 Requires improvement 1 1 1 1 1 Inadequate 2 2 2 2 2 Total 4 4 4 4 4

Figure 16: Estyn assessments in YOIs holding children 2018–19

Standards Well-being and Teaching Care, support Leadership and attitudes to and learning and guidance management learning experiences Excellent 1 0 1 1 0 Good 0 1 0 0 1 Adequate and needs improvement 0 0 0 0 0 Unsatisfactory and needs urgent 0 0 0 0 0 improvement Total 1 1 1 1 1

38 Including separate assessments for the Keppel Unit at Wetherby.

58 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody

Leadership and management of education Although release planning had improved, had improved and there continued to be there were still concerns about the lack enough education places for the population. of provision of suitable accommodation Improved partnership working between for children before their release. This prison and education managers at Wetherby undermined all aspects of release had led to raised standards. At Feltham, planning and meant some children had no managers had reduced the number of accommodation identified for them on the interruptions to education and improved day they were released. This was a particular attendance. problem for looked-after children. However, ‘keep-apart’ lists to separate children in conflict with each other and other Revised Expectations for children in measures to prevent violence continued to custody affect attendance and punctuality. There In 2018–19 we carried out a review of was also not enough outreach provision for our Expectations for children in custody. children who could not attend education, The aim was to bring them up to date and many received far less than the 15 to ensure we continue to fulfil our hours’ education they were entitled to. responsibility to deliver independent and objective assessments of outcomes Some prisons contracted the Kinetic youth for children. The revised Expectations work social enterprise to provide enrichment were published in November 2018 after activities, such as games and youth clubs, extensive consultation, and are based on which children across the estate valued. and referenced against international and regional human rights standards.39 The Provision for resettlement revised Expectations will apply to reports Resettlement provision for children at all published in 2019–20. establishments was good or reasonably good. There was effective casework, children’s We have retained our four healthy prison understanding of resettlement plans was tests but made some substantial revisions clear and there was suitable support, to reflect the particular needs of children, although at Werrington this was hampered and have renamed our ‘respect’ test as by some staff shortfalls. At Feltham, a child’s ‘care’. sentence or remand plan was not central to Because of the inherent vulnerability of driving their progress through their sentence, all children, our Expectations for children and at Parc it did not adequately consider remain more specific and demanding than risk, which affected safe reintegration into those for other detainees. We hope that the community for some children. they support establishments in improving Care for looked-after children in prisons was the outcomes for children in their care. consistently good, with prison-based social workers to advocate on behalf of children at all establishments. However, support from local authorities remained inconsistent. There was good support to help children maintain and build relationships with their families, but regular visits were difficult for many because of the distance children were held from home. Only 36% of children at Parc and 27% at Wetherby said it was easy for their family and friends to visit.

39 HMI Prisons (2018). Expectations: Criteria for assessing the treatment of children and conditions in prisons. Available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2018/11/Childrens-Expectations- FINAL-261118-2.pdf

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 59 SECTION FIVE Children in custody

Secure training centres Behaviour management was undermined by chronic inconsistency of application. ¡¡ Outcomes for children in all three STCs The level of violence in STCs remains the remained a cause for concern. highest per head of those held in any type ¡¡ We continued to find high levels of of establishment we inspect. The number of violence and use of force. incidents had reduced slightly at Rainsbrook ¡¡ All three centres had experienced but remained high overall. At our Medway significant staff turnover, and systems inspection in February 2018, there had been to manage children’s behaviour were 74 assaults on staff and 83 fights or assaults undermined by inconsistent application between children in the previous six months. by staff. A substantial proportion of children held in STCs also reported experiencing bullying or intimidation. The deficiencies in behaviour It was clear from our previous annual management affected outcomes across all report that the overall effectiveness of STCs areas. required significant change if outcomes for children were to improve. Although In our survey, 62% of children in STCs said some progress had been made, all three they had been physically restrained since establishments were, this year, still assessed they had arrived – compared with 49% in as requiring improvement (see figure 17). YOIs. The use of pain-inducing techniques continued to affect outcomes for children in In our survey, 77% of children said that they all STCs. felt safe on their first night. However, 26% said that they had felt unsafe in their current Pain-inducing techniques have been used STC and 11% felt unsafe at the time of on 11 occasions since the start of 2018. inspection. This is an increase. On many occasions, these techniques failed to achieve their desired outcome of speeding up the child’s compliance, and the restraints were concluded using other means. Oakhill

Figure 17: Outcomes in inspections of secure training centres 2018–1940

Medway (February 2018) Oakhill Rainsbrook Overall effectiveness Requires improvement Requires improvement Requires improvement The safety of children Requires improvement Requires improvement Requires improvement Promoting positive behaviour Requires improvement Inadequate Requires improvement The care of young people Requires improvement Requires improvement Requires improvement The achievement of children Requires improvement Requires improvement Good The resettlement of children Requires improvement Requires improvement Good The health of children Good Good Requires improvement The effectiveness of leaders and managers Requires improvement Requires improvement Requires improvement

Medway (December 2018) Overall experience and progress of children and young people Requires improvement to be good How well children and young people are helped and protected Requires improvement to be good The quality of education and related activities Good The health of children and young people Good The effectiveness of leaders and managers Requires improvement to be good

40 In the December 2018 inspection of Medway, Ofsted piloted its new inspection framework using different criteria in making judgements.

60 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody

However, there are signs that governance of use of force is becoming more rigorous. Although staff did not always use body-worn cameras, their use was increasing, aiding transparency and the safeguarding of both children and staff. There had been some improvements in the recruitment and retention of well‑trained frontline staff, and the use of new approaches.

A new permanent senior leadership team has been recently established, which strongly supports the director’s strategic vision for an improved model of care for young people in custody. The approach is rooted in a context of child development, psychological and trauma-based informed formulations, plans and interventions. Rainsbrook

Safeguarding was also showing signs of improvement, with links to local safeguarding children boards. Living units at Medway had improved and were child-friendly.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 61 6 Immigration detention SECTION SIX Immigration detention

This section reports on the inspection In the year ending March 2019, 24,333 of three immigration removal centres people entered detention, a decrease of 8% (IRCs), six short-term holding facilities on the previous year and the lowest level (STHFs), four overseas charter flight since comparable records began in 2009.41 removals and the family detention The reduction in immigration detention facilities in Tinsley House IRC. The became particularly marked following closure of Campsfield House IRC was the Windrush scandal in 2018 (when it announced shortly after our inspection emerged that some longstanding residents there. All our findings are based on from Commonwealth countries had been the fourth edition of our wrongly deported) and subsequent changes Expectations: in the immigration system. At the end of Criteria for assessing the conditions for March 2019, 1,481 people were held in the and treatment of immigration detainees, immigration detention estate and a further published in January 2018. 355 in prisons under immigration powers.42 These figures do not include those held in ¡¡ The three IRCs and the family detention non-residential STHFs. facilities inspected have tended to deliver some of the better outcomes Important reports during the year included in the estate, and continued to do so. Stephen Shaw’s progress report on the However, we still found deterioration in welfare of vulnerable detainees,43 and outcomes at each centre. an investigation into abuses at Brook 44 ¡¡ Fewer immigration detainees were held House IRC. There was also significant than in the past but some were held for parliamentary scrutiny of immigration prolonged periods. There was still no detention by the Home Affairs Committee time limit on detention for detainees. and the Joint Human Rights Committee, to which HMI Prisons provided evidence. ¡¡ Violence was rare but anxiety about immigration status and removal led to many detainees feeling unsafe. Outcome of previous recommendations In the IRCs reported on in 2018–19: ¡¡ The Home Office’s adults at risk procedures were not sufficiently ¡¡ 38% of our previous recommendations effective in preventing the detention of in the area of safety had been achieved, vulnerable people. 8% partially achieved and 54% not achieved ¡¡ Preparation for removal and release remained good at most centres. ¡¡ 48% of our previous recommendations in the area of respect had been ¡¡ Conditions in STHFs were generally achieved, 5% partially achieved and adequate. 47% not achieved ¡¡ We expressed serious concerns about ¡¡ 20% of our previous recommendations the disproportionate use of restraint on in the area of activities had been overseas removals. achieved, 30% partially achieved and 50% not achieved ¡¡ 32% of our previous recommendations in the area of preparation for removal and release had been achieved, 11% partially achieved and 58% not achieved.

41 National Statistics (2019). How many people are detained or returned? Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/ publications/immigration-statistics-year-ending-march-2019/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned 42 Ibid. 43 Shaw, Stephen (2018). Assessment of government progress in implementing the report on the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/728376/ Shaw_report_2018_Final_web_accessible.pdf 44 Verita (2018). Kate Lampard and Ed Marsden. Independent investigation into concerns about Brook House immigration removal centre. Available at https://www.verita.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/G4S-version-report.pdf

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 20182017–1918 63 SECTION SIX Immigration detention

Figure 18: Outcomes in inspections of IRCs 2018–1945

IRC and contractor Safety Respect Activities Preparation for removal and release Campsfield House (Mitie Care and Custody) Reasonably good Reasonably good Good Good Dungavel House (GEO Group UK) Good Reasonably good Good Good Tinsley House (G4S) Reasonably good Reasonably good Reasonably good Good Family Detention, Tinsley House (G4S) Reasonably good Good Good Reasonably good

IRC outcomes Although outcomes for detainees in all the Poor Home Office planning had led to centres were good or reasonably good, there the detention of a partially paralysed man had been a decline in outcomes for respect who required assistance with washing, at Dungavel and Campsfield, and for safety dressing and eating… Social services and purposeful activity at Tinsley House IRC. failed to provide him with supported accommodation and he was detained for Safety a further five weeks before being removed In our surveys, 41% of detainees said that from the UK. Campsfield House they felt unsafe. We offered confidential interviews to every detainee in each centre, Many rule 35 reports46 failed to provide partly to help us understand such findings. sufficient information and judgements to Nearly all interviewed detainees said that Home Office decision makers. The Home they felt physically safe and did not fear Office maintained detention in most cases assault from other detainees or staff. despite the rule 35 report being accepted However, many said they feared removal, or as evidence of torture. Immigration histories that the uncertainties associated with open- were cited as countervailing factors in favour ended and prolonged detention exacerbated of detention. stress and affected feelings of safety. In Tinsley House, many detainees also told us All of the Home Office replies accepted staff had threatened to have them transferred evidence of torture, but only three of the 10 to the neighbouring Brook House IRC; it was led to release. Dungavel House a concern that detainees and staff regarded removal to another IRC as a punishment. It was also a concern that rule 35 reports A proportion of staff were also interviewed were rarely submitted on any grounds other in each centre, and none reported seeing than torture. excessive or unnecessary use of force.

Safeguarding and vulnerability The Home Office’s adults at risk policy was not effective in keeping vulnerable people out of detention and some were held for prolonged periods. In our analysis of casework, we regularly found detainees held for long periods, and some were considered by the Home Office to be adults at risk of harm in detention.

45 There were separate assessments for the Family Detention Unit at Tinsley House, making four sets of assessments for the three inspections. 46 Rule 35 requires notification to Home Office Immigration and Enforcement if a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by detention, including if they may have been the victim of torture.

64 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SIX Immigration detention

Removals failed for a variety of reasons, No rule 35 reports had been submitted but some detentions were prolonged due on the grounds of a suicide risk in the to factors within the Home Office’s control. previous six months. This was despite the Difficulties in arranging overseas escorts had fact that 29 detainees… had been placed also lengthened detention, especially when on constant observations during that period medical professionals were required. because staff were concerned about an imminent risk of self-harm or suicide. It generally took far too long, up to three Tinsley House months, to arrange escorted removals, prolonging detention unreasonably. In In our previous two annual reports, we one case, an escorted removal had been reported the worryingly high numbers cancelled on three occasions owing to staff of deaths in detention or very soon after shortages and on a fourth because of an release, including of people taking their own administrative mix-up. Campsfield House lives. Two more detention-related deaths took place this year – at Harmondsworth and Morton Hall. This remains a serious concern, Proportionality of security but is an improvement on the five deaths Physical security arrangements were mostly that took place in the last reporting year. proportionate. Detainees generally had good Unlike the prison and police services – and freedom of movement. At Campsfield House, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman – in detainees could move freely around the its published statistics, the Home Office only centre until 11pm and they were not locked records deaths that occurred in a detention in their rooms overnight. Detainees were no facility; it does not include those that have longer routinely handcuffed when attending taken place shortly after release. This hospital appointments. There was little divergent practice is unhelpful, and we hope evidence of drug use in centres. it will be revised. Physical conditions and staffing At Dungavel House, it was positive that all The standard of accommodation had detainees subject to case management as deteriorated substantially at Campsfield a result of self-harm risk received a mental House and Dungavel House, which had health assessment to ensure that their broken or missing furniture, damp and risks and needs were fully considered. In mould. We were told of a programme response to a previous recommendation, of refurbishment at Dungavel House. Tinsley House had created a dedicated care Campsfield was later closed. suite that could be used for people in crisis. Detainees were usually very positive about Home Office staff had good awareness of the way they were treated by staff. In our the National Referral Mechanism (which surveys, 81% of detainees said that most identifies, protects and supports victims staff treated them with respect, and in our of trafficking), but most detention custody confidential interviews they were usually very officers did not. Centre staff usually positive about staff. understood whistle-blowing policies but few had used them. Relationships between staff and detainees Length of detention were excellent and a key strength of the centre. This positive culture underpinned Most detainees were removed or released much of the centre’s stability and helped within two months but a few were held for alleviate detainees’ distress and anxiety. very lengthy periods. Dungavel House Nine detainees had been held for over six months, three of whom had been held for over a year. The longest detention was for 17 months. Campsfield House

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 65 SECTION SIX Immigration detention

Health care developed. However, while the treatment Detainees’ health care needs were largely of families was generally good, we were met, but at Campsfield House there were concerned about the harmful effect of arrest weaknesses in governance, resulting in and detention on children. two Care Quality Commission requirement notices to improve. At Campsfield House The arrest, detention and attempted and Dungavel House detainees interpreted removal of families from the UK was for fellow detainees during health care harmful to children and often ineffective... appointments, which compromised accuracy some children had witnessed their parents and confidentiality. being restrained, but after this traumatic process, nearly 80% of families were Preparation for removal and release simply released. Family Detention, Tinsley House Visitors’ groups provided good support to detainees. Detainees had good access to The PDA is within the grounds of an IRC welfare services at all centres. and was not as welcoming or as open as the accommodation at Cedars had been, but The level of support detainees received was still a decent and carefully designed was impressive and welfare officers worked environment. Activities were well planned, proactively to help them. Tinsley House and children and families had enough to do. The positive, child-centred welfare team Visits provision was good. At Campsfield included three social workers. Voluntary House detainees could take their visits in an organisations worked with families to address outdoor area, and at Dungavel visitors could their concerns about destination countries. eat together with detainees. Short-term holding facilities Detainees could contact the outside world by telephone, fax and email. At Dungavel, Outcome of previous recommendations internet access was too slow, and at In the STHFs reported on in 2018–19: Tinsley House too many legitimate websites ¡¡ 25% of our previous recommendations were blocked. Detainees could still not in the area of safety had been achieved, use video‑calling or social media, which 3% partially achieved and 72% not remained unnecessary restrictions. achieved ¡¡ 57% of our previous recommendations Family detention in the area of respect had been This was our first inspection of the new achieved, and 38% not achieved47 family detention facilities at Tinsley House, ¡¡ 20% of our previous recommendations which consisted of two distinct areas: the in the area of activities had been pre-departure accommodation (PDA), achieved, 60% partially achieved and which replaced the previous Cedars PDA in 20% not achieved West Sussex; and a smaller unit for border returns detainees. The latter held families ¡¡ none of our previous recommendations with children who had usually been refused in the area of preparation for removal entry at an airport and were being returned and release had been achieved. the next day. The PDA held families who had refused voluntary return, usually for no more Staff-detainee relationships remained a than five days. In the 11 months that the strength in STHFs, and some facilities PDA had been opened, only 19 families had had been refurbished. Most detainees did been detained, of whom four were removed. not have access to time outside, sleeping facilities or natural light, but for short stays Staff provided impressive care and support the conditions were reasonable. However, to families, and detention was strictly time- some detainees were held for too long. At limited. Safeguarding procedures were well Cayley House, one detainee arrived from

47 There was insufficient evidence to form a judgement on one recommendation.

66 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SIX Immigration detention

Colnbrook IRC, less than five miles away, at 2am for a flight nine hours later. A pregnant In several cases, the use of the belts clearly woman detained at Cayley House had an could not be justified by the detainee’s especially poor experience; she arrived at behaviour. For example, one man was the facility at 2pm and was held overnight placed in a belt simply because he had while awaiting an escort vehicle to take her to taken too long to finish a call to his solicitor an IRC so that she could sleep. She did not and was kept in it despite... being fully get to her bedroom in the IRC until 6.30am. compliant throughout. Third country unit However, she was then woken again at 9am removal to France and Bulgaria and taken back to Cayley House for a flight 12 hours later. In light of our findings and following constructive discussions, the Home Office Internet or email were not available at undertook a thorough review of use of force any non-residential facilities, but were and restraints during overseas removals easily accessible at Larne residential and committed to making improvements, facility. Unrelated men and women were including in use of de-escalation. We will sometimes held together in the Heathrow judge the effectiveness of the measures facilities. Children were occasionally held taken in further escorts inspections in the in the non‑residential facilities, but usually coming year. for short periods. Border Force staff at Heathrow promoted and safeguarded On the whole, relationships between escorts the welfare of children, and safeguarding and detainees were functional. While some and ‘modern slavery’ teams had received staff worked hard to put detainees at ease, enhanced training. on some flights, escorts talked over their heads and were loud and jocular at a time of Overseas escorts heightened stress for detainees. Detainees We inspected four charter flight removals were unable to use toilets without the door during the reporting period – one to Nigeria left ajar, and they were not given blankets and Ghana, one to Pakistan and two to and pillows. multiple European countries.48 The operations were generally conducted efficiently, but we had serious concerns about the use of restraints on the latter two flights.

Nearly all detainees were placed in waist restraint belts for the entire journey. The documentation and our own observations showed that, in many cases, restraints were not necessary, proportionate or reasonable. Detainees’ compliance was not tested during the journey, and restraints remained in place for longer than necessary. Third country unit removal to France, Austria and Bulgaria

At a subsequent inspection of a charter removal operation there had been little progress, and it was clear that senior managers were unaware of shortcomings in internal assurance mechanisms.

48 The UK is party to the Dublin convention, a European Union law that determines which EU member state is responsible for considering an asylum claim, and allows member states to transfer an asylum seeker to the responsible state. The Home Office’s Third Country Unit manages such removals to and from the UK.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 67 7 Police custody SECTION SEVEN Police custody

All the findings from inspections in this ¡¡ In all the police forces, the requirements section are based on the third edition of aspects of codes C and/or G of the of Expectations for police custody: Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Criteria for assessing the treatment of were not met consistently. and conditions for detainees in police , published jointly with HM ¡¡ Although there had been efforts to custody reduce the time children spent in Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & custody, too many were still detained Rescue Services (HMICFRS) in 2016, and overnight in police cells when they revised in 2018. This section draws on had been charged and refused bail, nine inspections of police custody suites generally due to the lack of alternative in: Cheshire, City of London, Derbyshire, local authority accommodation. Merseyside, Metropolitan Police ¡¡ Provision of health services had mostly Service (MPS), Norfolk and Suffolk, improved, with enhanced oversight Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and helping to improve care for detainees. Thames Valley. ¡¡ Support for people with mental ill health All inspections of police custody in England was much improved. and Wales are conducted jointly with HMICFRS and are unannounced. We visit custody suites during the day and night, Outcome of previous recommendations including early morning visits to observe and areas for improvement49 transfers to court and shift handovers, and In the police forces reported on in 2018–19: night-time and weekend visits to observe the ¡¡ 40% of our previous recommendations range of detainees held in custody. All police and areas for improvement for strategy custody inspections also include an analysis had been achieved, 27% partially of custody records and cases. achieved and 33% not achieved ¡¡ We found many positive features in ¡¡ 24% of our previous recommendations the approach to custody, but work was and areas for improvement for treatment still required in several key areas to and conditions had been achieved, deliver consistently good outcomes for 31% partially achieved and 45% not detainees. achieved ¡¡ All police forces were committed to ¡¡ 29% of our previous recommendations reducing the number of vulnerable and areas for improvement for individual people brought into custody. However, rights had been achieved, 6% partially provision of appropriate adult services, achieved and 65% not achieved including for vulnerable adults, was ¡¡ 83% of our previous recommendations frequently not sufficient. and areas for improvement for health ¡¡ We wrote to all chief constables in 2018 care had been achieved, 2% partially expressing concerns about governance achieved and 15% not achieved. and oversight of the use of force, and this was still a cause of concern in five forces and an area for improvement in the remaining four. ¡¡ The identification of risk was generally good but its subsequent management was not always appropriate or robust enough.

49 These applied to the Expectations used before revisions in 2018.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 69 SECTION SEVEN Police custody

Leadership The quality of custody records was generally In our inspections of police custody, we often not good enough. There was often a lack of found good treatment of and conditions for detail to justify decision making – such as detainees. Unfortunately, this was not always for the removal of detainee clothing – and the case and some detainees had negative important data, such as request and arrival experiences. times for appropriate adults, were often missing. Without this information, forces could At a strategic level, we saw clear and strong not assure themselves that decisions were governance of the custody functions. effective and in the best interest of detainees. However, in some forces, this did not always translate into effective day-to-day The quality of custody records was management and oversight of custody suites generally poor, and they lacked a and the provision for detainees. Performance comprehensive and clear narrative of information, particularly on the use of events. There was an over-reliance on force, appropriate adults (AAs), ethnicity drop-down scripts, important information and protected characteristics, and Mental was sometimes missing, and not all events, Health Act assessments, was insufficient actions or decisions were recorded… and/or unreliable in all the forces, except for quality assurance processes… were not Cheshire. sufficiently robust or appropriately focused, and had failed to identify extensive There were no data to monitor the overall non‑compliance with code C of PACE. time detainees were held in custody, There was little further scrutiny from more or waiting times for Mental Health Act senior managers. Derbyshire assessments. Some of the data provided for our case audits were also unreliable. Without comprehensive and accurate data, Risk assessment and detainee safety the force was unable to demonstrate that The standard of initial risk assessments it could assess how well custody services was generally good. However, the ongoing were performing, identify trends or inform management of risk was not always organisational learning. Northamptonshire individualised or robust enough. Observations to ensure that detainees were properly cared The detention of people in police custody for were often not set at a level that took is governed by the Police and Criminal account of all the presenting risks. Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and its codes of The 2017 review into deaths and serious practice. We expect police forces to comply incidents in police custody by Dame Elish with the requirements of PACE, but in all our Angiolini highlighted the significant risks inspections we found that elements of the for detainees under the influence of drugs relevant codes of practice were not always and/or alcohol.50 As a result of this review, met. Notably, we had repeated concerns we adapted our methodology to focus more about reviews of detentions, which were not closely on how these detainees were cared always properly focused on the best interests for. In many forces, detainees clearly under of detainees. the influence of drugs and/or alcohol were not identified or roused as required by … many reviews were conducted too Authorised Professional Practice – detention early and over the telephone without good and custody.51 More broadly, adherence justification, and detainees were not always to observation levels was also not always reminded at the earliest opportunity that achieved. We found a few checks that were a review had taken place while they were late, which was a concern for detainees asleep. Cheshire assessed as more vulnerable, such as those at risk of suicide or self-harm or under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

50 Rt. Hon. Dame Elish Angiolini DBE QC (2017). Report of the Independent Review of Deaths and Serious Incidents in Police Custody. Available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/deaths-and-serious-incidents-in-police-custody 51 Available at https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/detention-and-custody-2/

70 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SEVEN Police custody

to enable detainees to get home on their … custody staff did not always understand release, which was a concern given the that observation levels needed to reflect remote location of some suites. the risks posed, and some were set inappropriately. Some staff were also Staff did not check the safety and welfare unaware of the need to rouse intoxicated of detainees with any rigour before their detainees, and cell visits were carried release. Custody sergeants did not routinely out by different detention officers, which ask detainees how they planned to travel limited their ability to notice any changes in home or check if they had the means a detainee’s behaviour or mood over time. to travel after their release… we saw Merseyside detainees who were vulnerable leaving the custody suite, during the night, in pyjamas, Some forces did not manage the risk for and others released without shoes, yet staff individual detainees in the best way and did not notice this. Nottinghamshire often applied a blanket approach. Most forces continued the routine removal of detainees’ shoelaces and clothing with cords Conditions and detainee care with no individual risk assessment to justify The quality of the accommodation in custody the measure. However, with a couple of suites was mostly good, with thorough exceptions (Cheshire and Nottinghamshire) cleaning regimes and maintenance. when police removed clothing there was However, we identified potential ligature mostly good attention to maintaining points in many suites that could have been detainees’ dignity. easily identified and remedied through routine cell inspection and maintenance. We expect anti-rip clothing to be used as Once notified, forces generally responded a last resort but it was frequently used well by addressing the potential ligature routinely as a tool to manage risk. Its use was points or managing and offsetting the risks. often accompanied by levels of observations that did not indicate a significant presenting Interaction between custody staff and risk. We also saw anti-rip clothing used on detainees was mostly good, with clear efforts detainees routinely if they failed to answer by staff to establish positive and respectful risk assessment questions. relationships.

The use of anti-rip clothing to manage The detainees we observed were treated non‑compliant detainees or those with a with respect, empathy and consideration history of self-harm without an individual for their dignity and welfare. City of London risk assessment was often accompanied by a low level of observation. This did not Provision of food and drink was good, reflect the suggested risks that required and forces had enough foodstuffs to meet clothing to be removed. Norfolk and Suffolk a variety of dietary and religious needs. However, other aspects of detainee care were We saw some very good attention to ensuring not always good enough. The provision of detainees, particularly the most vulnerable, showers, exercise and reading materials for were released safely, but also some cases detainees was generally poor and certainly where there was an insufficient focus on not routine. Detainees still had to ask for release arrangements. The recording of toilet paper and sanitary items, rather than pre-release risk assessments on custody staff offering these as a matter of course. records was often poor; there was often Many detainees had their footwear removed no consideration of the original risks that and were not given a suitable replacement, detainees presented when they were booked and often walked around the custody suite in or what, if any, arrangements were made barefoot or in socks. to mitigate these and support them in returning home safely. Custody suites did not always have petty cash and travel warrants

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 71 SECTION SEVEN Police custody

documentation to justify the use of force In our custody record analysis, only 9% was not completed. We highlighted use of all detainees were offered a shower, of force as a cause of concern or area for and only half of those held over 24 hours. improvement in all nine police forces. We Although exercise yards with fresh air are concerned that this critical area does not and natural light were available at most attract the oversight and level of governance custody suites, access to them was rare, we would expect from force leaderships. and facilitated for only 3% of detainees. Thames Valley … when force was used, the governance and oversight of incidents were not adequate, and the MPS did not have Meeting the needs of female detainees appropriate mechanisms to assure itself, In six of our inspections we reported that the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime the distinct needs of women in custody (MOPAC) and the public that the use were not met consistently or sufficiently. of force in detention and custody was Shortfalls in their care included not safe and proportionate. We found some stocking an adequate range of menstrual inaccuracy, as well as under-reporting, care products, and not offering these of the use of force, and not all officers routinely. In two inspections we reported submitted individual use of force forms, that some male staff were uncomfortable as required… Our main concerns related discussing menstrual care for female to the length of time some detainees detainees in their care. In Thames Valley, remained in ‘spit and bite’ guards we highlighted the degrading treatment of a (spit hoods), poor techniques, and the woman who did not receive menstrual care proportionality of some of the force used for products when she requested them and the risks posed. Metropolitan Police was subsequently left with soiled clothes during her stay in police custody. Strip searches were generally warranted and In 2018, the Home Office consulted on properly justified. The dignity of the detained changes to PACE to reflect requirements person was mostly maintained as far as for better menstrual care for female possible. However, some of the data provided detainees. We hope that this will result in by forces indicated a high proportion of strip improved outcomes for women in custody. searches, suggesting the possible inclusion of data on removal of clothing for safety reasons.

Use of force Children and vulnerable people in police In 2018, HMI Prisons and HMICFRS wrote custody jointly to all chief constables to advise them In our interviews with frontline officers, it of our ongoing concerns about the use of was positive to be told that arrest was used force in police custody. Despite this, we as a last resort when dealing with children continued to see a lack of governance and and other vulnerable people. In the custody oversight in its use. In some forces there suites we saw good interaction between staff was an under-recording of the use of force and detained children, and clear efforts to against detainees. There was little evidence minimise their time in custody and ensure they that incidents were critically reviewed, either were released safely. It was also positive that for their proportionality or the restraint forces applied some oversight and scrutiny to techniques used. how long children remained in custody. It was positive that custody staff often All forces were aware of the requirement in went to considerable efforts to de-escalate the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 challenging situations without resorting to for a female officer to be assigned to girls the use of force. However, where force had in custody to ensure their care and welfare been used on detainees, we frequently needs were met. However, in only four of our found insufficient recording of the incident inspections did records give assurance that on the custody record, and the necessary this happened routinely.

72 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SEVEN Police custody

There were still significant delays in the Patient care in police custody was generally attendance of AAs for both children and good, and most detainees were seen within other vulnerable people. In many cases they proper timescales. However, there was were only asked to attend at the time of variation in access to health professionals the interview – meaning that the detainees and waiting times, even within forces. In did not receive early and ongoing support Norfolk and Suffolk, for example, although throughout their stay in custody. Of particular most detainees were seen promptly based on concern, some children and vulnerable need, only 33% of detainees at the Aylsham adults were subjected to police processes, suite were seen within the agreed timescales. such as fingerprinting, without the presence of an AA; this did not meet the requirements Health services had improved significantly of PACE. since our previous inspection. Clinical governance arrangements were robust … some custody sergeants told us that and patient care was generally good. an AA would only be requested once the Thames Valley detainee interview had been arranged. Our analysis of custody records showed that the More health care environments, particularly time detainees waited for an AA to arrive in the newer suites, now complied with varied widely – ranging from 21 minutes to infection control standards, and most just over 18 hours. Norfolk and Suffolk detainees could access critical medicines and symptomatic relief for drug and alcohol Despite forces’ attempts to minimise withdrawal. All forces, except Thames children’s time in custody this was not Valley, enabled detainees to access opiate always achieved. The lack of provision of substitution therapy, in line with national local authority beds remained an issue, with guidance, although only Northamptonshire far too many children detained after charge provided detainees with a supply of and spending the night, and sometimes the medicines to take to court; the failure to weekend, in police cells because suitable provide detainees with their medication alternative accommodation was not available. created risk of relapse for those experiencing alcohol withdrawal. Access to nicotine Force data showed that of the 68 requests replacement therapy varied between forces. for accommodation made in the year to Most forces had seen a reduction in drug 30 September 2018, just one child was and alcohol practitioners delivering in-suite transferred out of custody. This was a support. Only Merseyside and Derbyshire poor outcome for children held overnight. had good provision, and drug arrest Nottinghamshire referral workers were embedded across the Derbyshire suites. This overall deterioration Health care in provision had affected outcomes for detainees, with lost opportunities to divert Each force commissioned health services individuals from criminal justice services. individually, which created some variation Without specialist face-to-face support, they in how services operated. Some forces were were less likely to engage with services (and supported by NHS England and most had could possibly revert to offending triggered shown improvements since they were last by their substance use) or to be identified as inspected, with enhanced oversight helping substance users needing confidential help. to improve care for detainees. For example, Thames Valley had improved significantly There had been greater investment and because of robust clinical governance. improvements in mental health support in all However, arrangements in the Metropolitan the forces. Dedicated mental health workers Police Service were more fragmented, with provided good support in most suites, and some inequitable provision. people were now detained in custody under

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 73 SECTION SEVEN Police custody

section 136 of the Mental Health Act52 only in exceptional circumstances. The majority Inspecting Terrorism Act detention of forces had also established effective In November 2018, we published, in partnership arrangements with local mental conjunction with HMICFRS, the first- health trusts. Most force areas had street ever Expectations: criteria for assessing triage arrangements that, coupled with the treatment of and conditions for mental health input to police control rooms, detainees in designated TACT custody were successfully diverting some vulnerable suites.53 Drawn up after consultation people away from custody. However, virtually with a small expert reference group, all forces often had significant delays in and based on and referenced against organising mental health assessments and international and regional human rights the onward transfer to hospital for detainees standards, these are the standards by under the Mental Health Act. which we inspect outcomes for people detained for terrorist or terrorism-related Criminal justice liaison and diversion offences in specially designated custody (CJLD) services provided excellent support suites. The Expectations build on the to detainees with vulnerabilities, particularly already well-established criteria we use those with mental ill health. However, a for the inspection of police custody, while small but significant number of detainees recognising the distinct experience for experiencing a mental health crisis had detainees held in TACT custody, including to wait for too long to be assessed and the application of different legislation and transferred to mental health facilities. potentially lengthier detention times. Merseyside Police With inspectors from HMICFRS, we completed our first inspection of the five TACT custody suites in England and Wales in early 2019, with the report to be published in summer 2019.

52 Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 enables a police officer to remove, from a public place, someone who they believe to be suffering from a mental disorder and in need of immediate care and control, and take them to a place of safety. In exceptional circumstances, and if they are 18 or over, the place of safety may be police custody. 53 HMI Prisons and HMICFRS (2018). Expectations: criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for detainees in designated TACT custody suites. Available at https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations/tact- custody-expectations/

74 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SEVEN Police custody

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 75 8 Court custody SECTION EIGHT Court custody

All the findings from inspections in this We saw a genuine strategic commitment section are based on Expectations: to improve outcomes for detainees across Criteria for assessing the treatment of all inspected court clusters, with a clear and conditions for detainees in court focus on welfare and driving up standards. custody, published in June 2012. This Positively, this focus was resulting in section draws on three inspections of improvements in some key areas, but further court custody facilities in North and work was still needed. West Yorkshire, Thames Valley, and Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Rutland The ‘Improving the experience of those and Northamptonshire, covering in custody at court’ group met quarterly nine Crown courts, 19 magistrates’ and was attended by senior managers courts, two combined courts and one from the three key agencies, including immigration and asylum chamber. representatives from the HMCTS estates department and, more recently, one of the lay observers. North and West Yorkshire ¡¡ There was a strategic commitment to improving the welfare of and outcomes for detainees. Improvements were GEOAmey staffing, particularly in Thames tangible but more work was needed. Valley, was not always sufficient and training ¡¡ Positively, hearings for remand cases was not always comprehensive enough. and those involving children and Many staff we interviewed had only limited vulnerable people were prioritised. knowledge of procedures for such issues as safeguarding referrals. ¡¡ Individual rights of detainees were generally met but some spent too long in court custody. There was a good attitude among court custody staff. They were committed and ¡¡ The identification and management of wanted to do a good job but they were risk, throughout custody and before often over-stretched or not trained well release, were not always robust enough. enough to do what was expected of them. ¡¡ There was still excessive use of Thames Valley handcuffs and searching in secure and controlled court custody facilities. Lay observers provided regular, independent ¡¡ Despite some concerted attention to scrutiny of custody facilities. Their reports improving the environments, physical were well received and often used to identify conditions overall in court cells were still and drive improvements. not good enough. ¡¡ The lack of consistent mental health Individual rights support for detainees was a concern. There was a generally good focus on ensuring that the individual rights of detainees were met during their stay in court Leadership, strategy and planning custody. Positively, we saw clear evidence in The strategic management of court custody all clusters that the courts prioritised cases facilities was improving. One of the key for people in custody, particularly those features to delivering good outcomes for involving children or the vulnerable. detainees is a strong working relationship between the three key agencies responsible Although less of a problem than previously, for the provision of court custody – HM some detainees were still held in custody for Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS), longer than necessary. This was sometimes Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) for reasons outside the courts’ control, and the contracted provider (GEOAmey including delays in: the attendance of duty in all three clusters). In the three clusters solicitors, which had the knock-on effect of inspected, those working relationships were delaying the hearing; escort vehicles waiting positive overall. for all women to be dealt with by the court before moving them to a women’s prison;

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 77 SECTION EIGHT Court custody

the transfer of children to secure Most courts had secure vehicle docks that accommodation; and securing formal protected detainees from media and public authority to release a person from prison. attention. Where this was not the case, staff were sensitive and did what they could to We expect detainees to appear before the protect detainees from public view. first available court, and saw courts across all clusters that were prepared to accept Custody staff generally did their best to detainees presented by the police when they look after and meet the individual needs of had capacity to deal with their case. The detainees, who mostly told us that they felt outcome for these detainees was that they well treated. However, there was variation in generally spent less unnecessary time in the approach to detainee care and meeting police custody and a custodial environment. individual and diverse needs. Detainees were usually given sufficient food and drinks Court proceedings involving detained and, although not routine, there was some children or vulnerable detainees were improvement in the provision of reading prioritised where possible. Magistrates’ materials to occupy them during their courts also accepted detainees from the relatively short stays. police up to and sometimes beyond 4pm, While a suitable range of women’s sanitary as long as the court was still sitting, which products was available, they were not was unusual but appropriate, and reduced routinely offered to female detainees. some unnecessary overnight stays in police Accessible facilities for detainees with custody. North and West Yorkshire disabilities or mobility issues were often limited. Despite good supplies of religious Treatment and conditions artefacts, they were rarely offered to detainees. The needs of transgender HMCTS was now more proactive in taking detainees were often not well understood. responsibility for and investing in court Although the number of children in court custody facilities. The custody environments custody was reducing, and we saw few in Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Rutland during our inspections, staff had received and Northamptonshire, and North and West little training on their specific needs and Yorkshire were better than we usually see, essentially treated them in the same way as but the conditions in Thames Valley were they did adults. poor overall. Despite some limited improvements, the Most detainees travelled to court from local identification and management of detainee police stations and prisons and did not risk were not always rigorous enough. The experience unnecessarily lengthy journeys. person escort records (PERs) were the main However, women and children were routinely source of information used to assess risk, transported together with adult men, and the and it was unhelpful and posed significant partitions in vehicles were not always used risk that their quality – from both the police to safeguard or protect them from potential and prisons – was often poor. Staff briefings abuse. Some detainees were left in vehicles were often insufficient to convey important once they arrived at the court, with effects on information concerning risk. Although better their comfort. than in our previous inspections, we still found some staff who did not adhere to Detainees were generally disembarked the required frequency of observations set swiftly on arrival at court. However, when for detainees. However, risk assessments delays were experienced, vehicle engines completed for detainees who arrived after were switched off, which shut down being remanded or sentenced by the court the heating system. The inspection was were generally better. conducted during a particularly cold spell and some detainees were left shivering. Thames Valley

78 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION EIGHT Court custody

Health care The initial assessment of detainee risk There was little demand for general health lacked rigour. The recently introduced services in court custody. A professional reception checklist was a potentially useful health advice helpline was available but not tool but was not yet used consistently widely used. Most custody staff had received and staff were not always responsive first aid training but had few opportunities to to detainees’ answers. The quality of practise and retain confidence in their skills. information in person escort records Few custody staff had received any training (PERs) was variable but often not adequate to support detainees with mental ill health, to inform an assessment of risk. Those and the lack of mental health practitioners detained after appearing on bail were to support detainees was a significant gap generally given a more careful initial risk across the court custody estate. assessment… there was no consistent approach to sharing important information about risks posed by individual detainees… The lack of embedded liaison and diversion The management of risk was generally practitioners was a significant gap in many better. With relatively few exceptions, most courts. Some benefited from a service detainees were checked at the required provided by mental health practitioners, frequency. Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Rutland which was invaluable to both detainees and Northamptonshire and court custody staff. However, the inequitable service affected the care and support provided to some detainees. As in previous inspections, we saw both Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Rutland and excessive handcuffing and searching of Northamptonshire detainees, including children. Court custody environments are generally secure and controlled, and these actions were often routine and not based on an individual risk assessment. It was, however, encouraging that the approach was far more proportionate in the Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Rutland and Northamptonshire cluster. The arrangements for ensuring detainees could get home safely after release were improving overall. However, while some custody staff were very alert to ensuring that detainees had the means to get home safely, this was not always the case.

Detainees were not routinely asked if they needed help with their travel arrangements before leaving custody. Although rail travel warrants were available in all suites, petty cash was not always offered if bus or taxi fares were more suitable. There were disparities between courts in the way that petty cash was accessed by staff, and detainees were not always provided with the financial support they needed to travel home safely after release. Thames Valley

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 79 9 The Inspectorate in 2018–19 SECTION NINE The Inspectorate in 2018–19

Income and expenditure – 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 Income £ MoJ (prisons and court cells) 3,622,000 Home Office (immigration detention) 352,220 Home Office (HMICFRS/police custody) 300,000 Youth Justice Board/Youth Justice Commissioning Team (YJCT) (children’s custody) 119,866 Other income (HMI Probation, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, STC, Ministry of Defence, 174,341 Border Force, Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, NPM Members) Total 4,568,427

Expenditure £ % Staff costs54 3,849,447 83% Travel and subsistence 593,178 13% Printing and stationery 20,062 0.4% Information technology and telecommunications55 27,772 Translators 15,458 Meetings and refreshments56 300 3.8% Training and development 43,646 Other costs (including recruitment costs, conferences and professional memberships) 87,222 Total 4,637,085

Expenditure 1 April 2018 to 31 March 201957

57 Other 4% Printing and stationery 0%

Travel and subsistence 13%

Staff costs 83%

54 Includes extra staff recruited in year to resource new Independent Review of Progress (IRP) work, fee-paid inspectors, secondees and joint inspection/partner organisations costs, e.g. General Pharmaceutical Council and contribution to secretariat support of the Joint Criminal Justice Inspection Chief Inspectors Group. 55 Includes the cost of renewing licenses to software (SPSS and SNAP) used by HMI Prisons researchers to process and analyse survey data. 56 Includes the cost of two-day induction event for 14 new inspectors which included staff employed to create an additional inspection team to provide resources to carry out new IRP work. 57 ‘Other’ includes IT, translators, meetings and refreshments, recruitment, conferences, training and development.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 81 SECTION NINE The Inspectorate in 2018–19

Inspectorate staffing – 1 April 2018 to Staff engagement 31 March 2019 Every year we gather feedback from our staff. Our staff and fee-paid associates come In 2018, we once again participated in the from a range of professional backgrounds. Civil Service People Survey, commissioned While many have experience of working in by the Cabinet Office and carried out by ORC prisons, others have expertise in social work, International. The survey was completed probation, law, youth justice, health care by 53% of HM Inspectorate of Prisons staff and drug treatment, social research and and survey results indicated a score of 81% policy. The majority of staff are permanent, on the staff engagement index. This was but we also take inspectors on loan from a very strong result; some 15 percentage HMPPS and other organisations. Currently, points higher than even ‘high performing 12 staff are loaned from HMPPS, and their units’ across the civil service. We launched experience and familiarity with current our People Strategy in August 2017 which practice are invaluable. addresses some of the feedback from the Civil Service People Survey, in particular learning and development (up 3% in the 2018 survey).

Staff and associates – 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 Peter Clarke Chief Inspector Martin Lomas Deputy Chief Inspector Barbara Buchanan Senior Personal Secretary to the Chief Inspector Nabila Heematally Administrative Support Officer to the Deputy Chief Inspector A Team (adult males) Alison Perry A Team Leader Natalie Heeks Inspector Jade Richards Inspector Paul Rowlands Inspector Jonathan Tickner Inspector O Team (women) Sandra Fieldhouse O Team Leader Fionnuala Gordon Inspector Jeanette Hall Inspector Ian Macfadyen Inspector Emma Sunley Inspector Darren Wilkinson Inspector Caroline Wright Inspector Y Team (children and Deborah Butler Y Team Leader young adults) Ian Dickens Inspector David Foot Inspector Angela Johnson Inspector Angus Mulready-Jones Inspector Alice Oddy Inspector David Owens Inspector Esra Sari Inspector Rebecca Stanbury Inspector Nadia Syed Inspector

82 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION NINE The Inspectorate in 2018–19

I Team (immigration Hindpal Singh Bhui I Team Leader detention) Beverley Alden Inspector Colin Carroll Inspector Michael Dunkley Inspector Tamara Pattinson Inspector Fran Russell Inspector Kam Sarai Inspector P team (police custody) Kellie Reeve Acting P Team Leader Fiona Shearlaw Inspector Health Services Team Tania Osborne Head of Health Services Inspection Steve Eley Health Inspector Shaun Thomson Health Inspector Research, Development Catherine Shaw Head of Research, Development and Thematics and Thematics Helen Ranns Senior Researcher Sharlene Andrew Researcher Amilcar Johnson Researcher Joe Simmonds Researcher Patricia Taflan Researcher Claudia Vince Researcher Charli Bradley Research Assistant Becky Duffield Research Assistant Rachel Duncan Research Trainee Holly Tuson Research Trainee Secretariat Louise Hopper Head of Secretariat Lesley Young Head of Finance, HR and Inspection Support John Steele Chief Communications Officer Louise Finer Senior Policy Officer and NPM Coordinator Jade Glenister Senior Policy Officer and NPM Coordinator (Acting) Tamsin Williamson Publications Manager Stephen Seago Inspection Support Manager Caroline Fitzgerald Inspection Support Officer John Huby Inspection Support Officer Fee-paid associates Jon Allen Inspector Anne Clifford Editor Paddy Doyle Inspector Sigrid Engelen Drugs and Alcohol inspector Monika Green Publications Assistant Martyn Griffiths Inspector Deri Hughes-Roberts Inspector Keith Humphreys Inspector Maureen Jamieson Health Inspector Martin Kettle Inspector Brenda Kirsch Editor Adrienne Penfield Editor Yasmin Prabhudas Editor Jayne Price Researcher

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 83 SECTION NINE The Inspectorate in 2018–19

Gordon Riach Inspector Andy Rooke Inspector Christopher Rush Inspector Sean Sullivan Inspector Paul Tarbuck Inspector Liz Walsh Inspector Staff and associates who Tamara Al Janabi Senior Researcher left this reporting year Clair Andrew Publications Assistant Lee Bruckshaw Inspector Francesca Cooney Inspector Karen Dillon Inspector Anna Edmundson Senior Policy Officer (NPM) Laura Green Researcher Natalie-Anne Hall Researcher Yvonne McGuckian Inspector Keith McInnis Inspector Gavriella Morris Inspection Support Officer (Policy) Stephen Oliver-Watts Inspector Anna O’Rourke Head of Secretariat Majella Pearce Health Inspector Alastair Pearson Inspector Simon Pyke Inspector Emma Seymour Researcher Emily Spilman Research Trainee Beth Wilson Research Trainee

84 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION NINE The Inspectorate in 2018–19

Stakeholder feedback ¡¡ 81% agreed/strongly agreed that ‘HMIP We conduct an annual online survey of staff have the necessary skills and stakeholders. A link to the questionnaire is expertise to deliver quality inspections’ distributed to our mailing list of contacts by ¡¡ 85% agreed/strongly agreed that ‘HMIP email. To reach a wider range of stakeholders has managed its resources efficiently, we also publicise the survey via staff and accounting for its performance and professional bulletins, place a link on our demonstrating value for money’ website and on staff email footers, and alert ¡¡ 74% agreed/strongly agreed that ‘HMIP our Twitter followers. During November has worked collaboratively with its 2018 we received 311 valid responses to the criminal justice partners and other key survey. stakeholders’. Feedback was generally very positive about a range of our communications. Over 80% Communications of stakeholders who completed the survey We issued nearly 70 media releases on had seen HMI Prisons represented in the inspection and thematic reports during national newspapers, radio, TV or in online the year. Many attracted broadcast and media. Nearly 90% of respondents said that newspaper interest – both at regional it was easy or very easy to find what they and national level. In the case of HMP were looking for on our website. Around 90% Birmingham, the Chief Inspector’s Urgent of respondents who had used the web-based Notification (UN) generated international Expectations for men’s prisons found them media interest. The two other UNs in easy to locate on the HMI Prisons website, 2018–19, at HMPs Exeter and Bedford, and a similar proportion reported that they also brought a significant focus on the were either very or quite easy to use. Inspectorate’s work. Our evidence informed debate and comment across the whole Our reports continue to be positively media spectrum, from the Financial Times received, with favourable scores of over and Daily Mail to the Morning Star, and 75% in relation to each of length, structure, increasingly in the ‘Twittersphere’. language, quantity of information, ease of navigation and treatment of diversity issues. The Chief Inspector was invited on a number However, a majority of resondents agreed of occasions to talk about prisons on the that our reports could do more to highlight Radio Four Today programme – as well positive findings or good practice. A very high as on a wide range of other national and proportion (86%) of respondents reported regional programmes. We continued to that they had looked at our 2017–18 annual publish our work on our website (launched report. in 2014, and on a shared platform with other justice inspectorates and independent We asked stakeholders whether they agreed from the government website, gov.uk). Our or disagreed with a series of statements Twitter feed attracted new followers each relating to HMI Prisons’ strategic themes:58 month, rising from just under 9,500 at the ¡¡ 89% agreed/strongly agreed that ‘HMIP end of March 2018 to well over 11,500 by has fulfilled its statutory duty to report the end of the year. There were high levels accurately, impartially and publicly on the of engagement with some tweets and the treatment and conditions for detainees’ feed continued to enable us to highlight the ¡¡ 84% agreed/strongly agreed that ‘HMIP publication of new reports, advertise jobs has provided constructive challenge to within the Inspectorate and tell people which those responsible for the establishments it establishments our teams were inspecting inspects’ each week. ¡¡ 83% agreed/strongly agreed that ‘Evidence from HMIP inspections has informed policy and practice’

58 All percentages exclude those who responded ‘don’t know/can’t say’.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 85 10 Appendices

Appendix one Inspection reports published 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 87 Appendix two Healthy prison and establishment assessments 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 89 Appendix three Recommendations accepted in 2018–19 91 Appendix four Recommendations achieved in 2018–19 94 Appendix five 2018–19 survey responses: diversity analysis 97 Appendix six 2018–19 survey responses: men and women 116 APPENDIX ONE

Inspection reports published 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

ESTABLISHMENT DATE PUBLISHED Spring Hill 10 April 2018 Humber 17 April 2018 Hindley 1 May 2018 Feltham A 9 May 2018 Medway STC 11 May 2018 Third country unit removal to France, Austria and Bulgaria 15 May 2018 Nottingham 16 May 2018 Long Lartin 22 May 2018 Leicester 31 May 2018 Northamptonshire police custody suites 1 June 2018 Werrington 5 June 2018 Low Newton 6 June 2018 Belmarsh 12 June 2018 Woodhill 19 June 2018 Thames Valley police custody suites 20 June 2018 Pakistan escort 28 June 2018 Leeds Waterside Court STHF 28 June 2018 Cayley House STHF 6 July 2018 Oakwood 10 July 2018 Wandsworth 13 July 2018 Dovegate therapeutic community 17 July 2018 Thames Valley court custody 19 July 2018 Third country unit removal to France and Bulgaria 24 July 2018 Wetherby and Keppel 26 July 2018 Oakhill STC 6 August 2018 Hull 7 August 2018 Derbyshire police custody suites 22 August 2018 Tinsley House IRC 30 August 2018 Tinsley House IRC Family Detention Unit 30 August 2018 High Down 4 September 2018 Styal 5 September 2018 Deerbolt 11 September 2018 Larne House STHF 18 September 2018 Drumkeen House STHF 18 September 2018 The Mount 27 September 2018 Norfolk & Suffolk police custody suites 2 October 2018 Exeter 9 October 2018 Chelmsford 12 October 2018 Ranby 18 October 2018 Wakefield 1 November 2018 Kirkham 6 November 2018 Merseyside police custody suites 15 November 2018 Dungavel House IRC 16 November 2018 Manchester 20 November 2018 Send 21 November 2018

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 87 APPENDIX ONE

Inspection reports published 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 (Continued)

ESTABLISHMENT DATE PUBLISHED Maghaberry 27 November 2018 Peterborough (men) 27 November 2018 Rainsbrook STC 27 November 2018 Nigeria and Ghana escort 29 November 2018 Birmingham 4 December 2018 North and West Yorkshire court custody 11 December 2018 Isis 18 December 2018 Lowdham Grange 8 January 2019 Swinfen Hall 10 January 2019 Metropolitan Police custody suites 15 January 2019 Bedford 22 January 2019 Campsfield House IRC 25 January 2019 Medway STC 29 January 2019 Cheshire police custody suites 1 February 2019 Channings Wood 5 February 2019 Featherstone 7 February 2019 Durham 12 February 2019 Maidstone 19 February 2019 Parc Young Persons’ Unit 26 February 2019 Hollesley Bay 5 March 2019 Heathrow Airport Terminal 3 STHF 7 March 2019 Heathrow Airport Terminal 4 STHF 7 March 2019 Lancaster Farms 12 March 2019 Lincolnshire, Leicestershire & Rutland and Northamptonshire court custody 13 March 2019 Stoke Heath 19 March 2019 Onley 21 March 2019 Nottinghamshire police custody suites 26 March 2019 City of London police custody suites 26 March 2019

88 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX TWO

Healthy prison and establishment assessments 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

HEALTHY PRISON / ESTABLISHMENT ASSESSMENTS REHABILITATION TYPE OF PURPOSEFUL AND RELEASE ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION SAFETY RESPECT ACTIVITY PLANNING59 LOCAL PRISONS Bedford Unannounced 1 1 1 2 Belmarsh Unannounced 3 2 1 3 Birmingham Unannounced 1 1 1 1 Chelmsford Unannounced 1 2 1 3 Durham Unannounced 1 3 2 2 Exeter Unannounced 1 2 2 3 High Down Unannounced 2 3 1 2 Hull Unannounced 3 3 3 3 Leicester Unannounced 2 3 3 3 Manchester Unannounced 2 2 2 3 Nottingham Announced 1 2 2 2 Peterborough (men) Unannounced 2 3 3 4 Wandsworth Unannounced 2 2 1 3 Woodhill Unannounced 1 3 1 3 HIGH SECURITY PRISONS Long Lartin Unannounced 3 2 2 3 Wakefield Unannounced 3 4 3 3 TRAINING PRISONS Channings Wood Unannounced 2 2 2 2 Featherstone Announced 2 3 3 3 Hindley Unannounced 2 2 1 3 Humber Unannounced 2 3 2 3 Isis Unannounced 2 3 2 2 Lancaster Farms Unannounced 3 3 2 2 Lowdham Grange Unannounced 2 3 4 3 Maidstone Unannounced 3 3 1 2 Oakwood Unannounced 3 4 4 3 Onley Unannounced 1 2 2 2 The Mount Unannounced 2 2 1 1 Ranby Unannounced 2 3 3 2 Stoke Heath Unannounced 3 3 2 3 Swinfen Hall Unannounced 2 2 1 3 OPEN PRISONS Hollesley Bay Unannounced 4 4 3 3 Kirkham Unannounced 4 3 3 3 Spring Hill Unannounced 4 3 3 3

KEY TO TABLE Numeric: 1 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor 2 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not sufficiently good 3 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good 4 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good

59 Resettlement in women’s prisons.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 89 APPENDIX TWO

Healthy prison and establishment assessments 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 (Continued)

HEALTHY PRISON / ESTABLISHMENT ASSESSMENTS REHABILITATION TYPE OF PURPOSEFUL AND RELEASE ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION SAFETY RESPECT ACTIVITY PLANNING WOMEN’S PRISONS Low Newton Unannounced 3 4 4 3 Send Unannounced 4 4 2 4 Styal Unannounced 4 3 3 4 YOUNG ADULT PRISONS Deerbolt Unannounced 3 3 2 2 THERAPEUTIC COMMUNITY Dovegate TC Unannounced 4 4 3 3 CHILDREN’S ESTABLISHMENTS Feltham A Unannounced 3 3 2 3 Parc CYP Unannounced 3 4 4 3 Keppel Unannounced 4 4 3 4 Werrington Unannounced 3 4 3 4 Wetherby Unannounced 2 3 3 4 EXTRA-JURISDICTION Maghaberry Unannounced 2 3 2 4 IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRES Campsfield House Unannounced 3 3 4 4 Dungavel House Unannounced 4 3 4 4 Tinsley House Unannounced 3 3 3 4 Tinsley House Family Unannounced 3 4 4 4 Detention Unit

KEY TO TABLE Numeric: 1 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor 2 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not sufficiently good 3 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good 4 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good

90 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX THREE

Recommendations accepted in action plans received 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED (includes recommendations accepted in principle / accepted ESTABLISHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED subject to resources) REJECTED LOCAL PRISONS MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total Nottingham 8 31 39 4 18 22 4 9 13 0 4 4 Leicester 4 42 46 3 31 34 1 6 7 0 5 5 Belmarsh 6 34 40 4 27 31 0 6 6 2 1 3 Woodhill 3 58 61 3 46 49 0 6 6 0 6 6 Wandsworth 7 56 63 4 36 40 3 14 17 0 6 6 Hull 4 40 44 4 29 33 0 7 7 0 4 4 High Down 4 56 60 2 41 43 2 12 14 0 3 3 Exeter 5 42 47 5 30 35 0 6 6 0 6 6 Chelmsford 10 0 10 6 0 6 3 0 3 1 0 1 Manchester 5 62 67 3 43 46 2 10 12 0 9 9 Peterborough men 2 56 58 2 42 44 0 10 10 0 4 4 Birmingham 9 50 59 9 44 53 0 6 6 0 0 0 Bedford 7 54 61 6 44 50 1 6 7 0 4 4 Durham – – – – – – – – – – – – Total 74 581 655 55 431 486 16 98 114 3 52 55 (74%) (74%) (74%) (22%) (17%) (17%) (4%) (9%) (8%) CATEGORY B TRAINING PRISONS Dovegate TC 1 24 25 1 22 23 0 2 2 0 0 0 Lowdham Grange 6 66 72 6 60 66 0 5 5 0 1 1 Total 7 90 97 7 82 89 0 7 7 0 1 1 (100%) (91%) (92%) (0%) (8%) (7%) (0%) (1%) (1%) CATEGORY C TRAINING PRISONS Humber 3 52 55 2 39 41 1 6 7 0 7 7 Hindley 4 48 52 0 39 39 3 7 10 1 2 3 Oakwood 3 31 34 3 28 31 0 1 1 0 2 2 Deerbolt (YA) 3 49 52 1 37 38 2 8 10 0 4 4 The Mount 6 63 69 5 43 48 1 16 17 0 4 4 Ranby 4 38 42 4 32 36 0 3 3 0 3 3 Isis 4 37 41 4 30 34 0 3 3 0 4 4 Swinfen Hall 4 53 57 3 46 49 1 4 5 0 3 3 Channings Wood – – – – – – – – – – – – Featherstone 4 42 46 3 32 35 1 9 10 0 1 1 Maidstone – – – – – – – – – – – – Lancaster Farms – – – – – – – – – – – – Onley – – – – – – – – – – – – Stoke Heath – – – – – – – – – – – – Total 35 413 448 25 326 351 9 57 66 1 30 31 (71%) (79%) (78%) (26%) (14%) (15%) (3%) (7%) (7%)

KEY TO TABLE Hyphen (-) – Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting peroid (31 March 2019) MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 91 APPENDIX THREE

Recommendations accepted in action plans received 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 (Continued)

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED (includes recommendations accepted in principle / accepted ESTABLISHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED subject to resources) REJECTED HIGH SECURITY MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total PRISONS Long Lartin 3 46 49 1 27 28 1 12 13 1 7 8 Wakefield 3 49 52 3 32 35 0 11 11 0 6 6 Total 6 95 101 4 59 63 1 23 24 1 13 14 (67%) (62%) (62%) (17%) (24%) (24%) (17%) (14%) (14%) OPEN PRISONS Spring Hill 2 27 29 0 23 23 2 3 5 0 1 1 Kirkham 2 35 37 2 28 30 0 5 5 0 2 2 Hollesley Bay – – – – – – – – – – – – Total 4 62 66 2 51 53 2 8 10 0 3 3 (50%) (82%) (80%) (50%) (13%) (15%) (0%) (5%) (5%) WOMEN’S PRISONS Low Newton 3 27 30 1 15 16 1 5 6 1 7 8 Styal 3 40 43 1 30 31 0 6 6 2 4 6 Send 1 25 26 1 19 20 0 3 3 0 3 3 Total 7 92 99 3 64 67 1 14 15 3 14 17 (43%) (70%) (68%) (14%) (15%) (15%) (43%) (15%) (17%) CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S ESTABLISHMENTS Feltham A 3 48 51 2 35 37 1 10 11 0 3 3 Werrington 1 26 27 1 18 19 0 4 4 0 4 4 Wetherby & Keppel 3 52 55 3 38 41 0 10 10 0 4 4 Parc – – – – – – – – – – – – Total 7 126 133 6 91 97 1 24 25 0 11 11 (86%) (72%) (73%) (14%) (19%) (19%) (0%) (9%) (8%)

PRISON TOTAL 140 1,459 1,599 102 1,104 1,206 30 231 261 8 124 132 (73%) (76%) (75%) (21%) (16%) (16%) (6%) (8%) (8%)

KEY TO TABLE Hyphen (-) – Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting peroid (31 March 2019) MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations

92 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX THREE

Recommendations accepted in action plans received 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 (Continued)

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED (includes recommendations accepted in principle / accepted ESTABLISHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED subject to resources) REJECTED IMMIGRATION MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total REMOVAL CENTRES Tinsley House 2 48 50 0 37 37 2 7 9 0 4 4 Tinsley House 1 12 13 1 8 9 0 3 3 0 1 1 Family Detention Unit Dungavel House 2 32 34 2 24 26 0 6 6 0 2 2 Campsfield House N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 5 92 97 3 69 72 2 16 18 0 7 7 SHORT-TERM HOLDING FACILITIES Leeds Waterside 0 9 9 0 2 2 0 4 4 0 3 3 Court Cayley House 0 11 11 0 6 6 0 4 4 0 1 1 Larne House 0 10 10 0 4 4 0 3 3 0 3 3 Drumkeen House 0 5 5 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 2 Heathrow Airport – – – – – – – – – – – – Terminal 3 Heathrow Airport – – – – – – – – – – – – Terminal 4 Total 0 35 35 0 14 14 0 12 12 0 9 9 OVERSEAS ESCORTS Pakistan 0 12 12 0 9 9 0 2 2 0 1 1 Nigeria and Ghana 0 18 18 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 1 1 France and 0 7 7 0 5 5 0 2 2 0 0 0 Bulgaria France, Austria and 0 11 11 0 9 9 0 1 1 0 1 1 Bulgaria Total 0 48 48 0 40 40 0 5 5 0 3 3 EXTRA JURISDICTION Maghaberry Prison N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 COURTS Thames Valley 5 17 22 4 12 16 1 3 4 0 2 2 courts North and West 2 27 29 2 20 22 0 3 3 0 4 4 Yorkshire courts Total 7 44 51 6 32 38 1 6 7 0 6 6

KEY TO TABLE Hyphen (-) – Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting peroid (31 March 2019) MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations N/A – Indicates no recommendations were made as the establishment was due to close or no action plan was required

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 93 APPENDIX FOUR

Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019

RECOMMENDATIONS (excluding recommendations no ESTABLISHMENT longer relevant and good practice) ACHIEVED PARTIALLY ACHIEVED NOT ACHIEVED

LOCAL PRISONS MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total

Nottingham 6 42 48 0 12 12 2 11 13 4 19 23 Leicester 5 63 68 1 30 31 1 7 8 3 26 29 Belmarsh 5 53 58 0 11 11 0 10 10 5 32 37 Woodhill 4 72 76 1 24 25 1 2 3 2 46 48 Wandsworth 5 81 86 1 22 23 2 16 18 2 43 45 Hull 4 61 65 2 28 30 1 2 3 1 31 32 High Down 4 76 80 0 31 31 1 1 2 3 44 47 Exeter 4 51 55 0 19 19 2 4 6 2 28 30 Chelmsford 6 57 63 0 16 16 2 13 15 4 28 32 Manchester 2 73 75 1 27 28 0 5 5 1 41 42 Peterborough (men) 1 39 40 1 19 20 0 4 4 0 16 16 Birmingham 4 65 69 0 12 12 0 3 3 4 50 54 Bedford 5 63 68 0 19 19 2 3 5 3 41 44 Durham 5 60 65 3 17 20 1 3 4 1 40 41 Total 60 856 916 10 287 297 15 84 99 35 485 520 (17%) (34%) (32%) (25%) (10%) (11%) (58%) (57%) (57%) CATEGORY B TRAINING PRISONS Dovegate TC 3 44 47 2 22 24 1 10 11 0 12 12 Lowdham Grange 4 64 68 0 24 24 1 4 5 3 36 39 Total 7 108 115 2 46 48 2 14 16 3 48 51 (29%) (43%) (42%) (29%) (13%) (14%) (43%) (44%) (44%) CATEGORY C TRAINING PRISONS Humber 4 64 68 0 28 28 2 17 19 2 19 21 Hindley 6 55 61 1 14 15 4 11 15 1 30 31 Oakwood 7 60 67 4 45 49 1 1 2 2 14 16 Deerbolt (YA) 4 54 58 0 32 32 1 5 6 3 17 20 The Mount 5 59 64 0 19 19 2 3 5 3 37 40 Ranby 5 42 47 2 28 30 1 3 4 2 11 13 Isis 7 60 67 2 34 36 3 3 6 2 23 25 Swinfen Hall 5 58 63 1 24 25 2 8 10 2 26 28 Channings Wood 4 60 64 0 22 22 0 1 1 4 37 41 Featherstone 6 76 82 3 44 47 2 2 4 1 30 31 Maidstone 3 51 54 0 14 14 1 8 9 2 29 31 Lancaster Farms 4 60 64 0 21 21 2 10 12 2 29 31 Onley 6 64 70 0 24 24 0 3 3 6 37 43 Stoke Heath 6 64 70 3 36 39 0 1 1 3 27 30 Total 72 827 899 16 385 401 21 76 97 35 366 401 (22%) (47%) (45%) (29%) (9%) (11%) (49%) (44%) (45%)

KEY TO TABLE MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations

94 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX FOUR

Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 (Continued)

RECOMMENDATIONS (excluding recommendations no ESTABLISHMENT longer relevant and good practice) ACHIEVED PARTIALLY ACHIEVED NOT ACHIEVED HIGH SECURITY MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total PRISONS Long Lartin 6 60 66 1 23 24 3 9 12 2 28 30 Wakefield 3 41 44 0 20 20 1 7 8 2 14 16 Total 9 101 110 1 43 44 4 16 20 4 42 46 (11%) (43%) (40%) (44%) (16%) (18%) (44%) (42%) (42%) OPEN PRISONS Spring Hill 4 50 54 1 20 21 2 11 13 1 19 20 Kirkham 2 51 53 0 30 30 0 4 4 2 17 19 Hollesley Bay 2 28 30 0 14 14 0 1 1 2 13 15 Total 8 129 137 1 64 65 2 16 18 5 49 54 (13%) (50%) (47%) (25%) (12%) (13%) (63%) (38%) (39%) WOMEN’S PRISONS Low Newton 2 54 56 1 29 30 0 9 9 1 16 17 Styal 1 56 57 1 29 30 0 10 10 0 17 17 Send 2 35 37 2 19 21 0 5 5 0 11 11 Total 5 145 150 4 77 81 0 24 24 1 44 45 (80%) (53%) (54%) (0%) (17%) (16%) (20%) (30%) (30%) CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S ESTABLISHMENTS Feltham A 5 76 81 1 31 32 2 16 18 2 29 31 Werrington 2 42 44 0 24 24 1 8 9 1 10 11 Wetherby & Keppel 5 72 77 1 36 37 0 4 4 4 32 36 Parc 3 30 33 0 18 18 1 1 2 2 11 13 Total 15 220 235 2 109 111 4 29 33 9 82 91 (13%) (50%) (47%) (27%) (13%) (14%) (60%) (37%) (39%)

PRISON TOTAL 176 2,386 2,562 36 1,011 1,047 48 259 307 92 1,116 1,208 (20%) (42%) (41%) (27%) (11%) (12%) (52%) (47%) (47%)

RECOMMENDATIONS (excluding recommendations no ESTABLISHMENT longer relevant and good practice) ACHIEVED PARTIALLY ACHIEVED NOT ACHIEVED IMMIGRATION MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total REMOVAL CENTRES Tinsley House 1 54 55 1 20 21 0 4 4 0 30 30 Tinsley House 0 25 25 0 14 14 0 0 0 0 11 11 Family Detention Unit Dungavel House 2 32 34 0 10 10 1 5 6 1 17 18 Campsfield House 1 39 40 0 17 17 0 3 3 1 19 20 Total 4 150 154 1 61 62 1 12 13 2 77 79 (25%) (41%) (40%) (25%) (8%) (8%) (50%) (51%) (51%)

KEY TO TABLE MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 95 APPENDIX FOUR

Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 (Continued)

ESTABLISHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ACHIEVED PARTIALLY ACHIEVED NOT ACHIEVED (excluding recommendations no longer relevant and good practice) SHORT-TERM HOLDING MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total FACILITIES Leeds Waterside 0 16 16 0 11 11 0 1 1 0 4 4 Court Cayley House 0 20 20 0 7 7 0 1 1 0 12 12 Larne House 0 10 10 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 7 7 Drumkeen House 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 Heathrow Airport 0 20 20 0 3 3 0 1 1 0 16 16 Terminal 3 Heathrow Airport 0 19 19 0 5 5 0 1 1 0 13 13 Terminal 4 Total 0 89 89 0 28 28 0 5 5 0 56 56 (0%) (31%) (31%) (0%) (6%) (6%) (0%) (63%) (63%) POLICE CUSTODY Northamptonshire 2 18 20 1 4 5 0 2 2 1 12 13 police Thames Valley 2 22 24 1 6 7 1 8 9 0 8 8 police Derbyshire police 4 12 16 2 4 6 0 1 1 2 7 9 Norfolk & Suffolk 0 15 15 0 9 9 0 5 5 0 1 1 police Merseyside police 2 27 29 0 9 9 2 10 12 0 8 8 Metropolitan police N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Cheshire police 3 12 15 3 4 7 0 3 3 0 5 5 Nottinghamshire 3 16 19 3 6 9 0 1 1 0 9 9 police City of London 1 23 24 0 12 12 1 6 7 0 5 5 police Total 17 145 162 10 54 64 4 36 40 3 55 58 (59%) (37%) (40%) (24%) (25%) (25%) (18%) (38%) (36%) OVERSEAS ESCORTS Pakistan 0 11 11 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 9 9 Nigeria and Ghana 0 14 14 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 9 9 Total 0 25 25 0 5 5 0 2 2 0 18 18 (0%) (20%) (20%) (0%) (8%) (8%) (0%) (72%) (72%) EXTRA JURISIDCTIONS Maghaberry Prison 9 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 Total 9 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%) (0%) (100%) (0%) (0%) (0%)

KEY TO TABLE MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations N/A – Not a follow up inspection, so no judgements on recommendations

96 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX FIVE

Prisoner survey responses (adult men): ethnicity/religion Muslim White men ethnic men Non-Muslim Black and minority Black and minority Number of completed questionnaires returned 1,814 4,031 977 4,814 DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.2 Are you under 21 years of age? 10% 6% 9% 7% Are you 25 years of age or younger? 34% 20% 34% 22% Are you 50 years of age or older? 8% 17% 4% 16% Are you 70 years of age or older? 0% 2% 0% 1% 1.3 Are you from a minority ethnic group? 87% 20% 1.4 Have you been in this prison for less than 6 months? 39% 45% 39% 44% 1.5 Are you currently serving a sentence? 88% 88% 89% 88% Are you on recall? 6% 10% 6% 9% 1.6 Is your sentence less than 12 months? 8% 12% 6% 12% Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)? 3% 4% 3% 3% 7.1 Are you Muslim? 47% 3% 11.3 Do you have any mental health problems? 30% 48% 29% 45% 12.1 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 23% 38% 22% 36% 19.1 Do you have any children under the age of 18? 49% 50% 44% 51% 19.2 Are you a foreign national? 15% 7% 16% 8% 19.3 Are you from a traveller community (e.g. Gypsy, Roma, Irish Traveller)? 2% 6% 2% 6% 19.4 Have you ever been in the armed services? 4% 8% 3% 7% 19.5 Is your gender female or non-binary? 1% 1% 1% 1% 19.6 Are you homosexual, bisexual or other sexual orientation? 2% 4% 2% 4% 19.7 Do you identify as transgender or transsexual? 2% 2% 1% 2% ARRIVAL AND RECEPTION 2.1 Were you given up-to-date information about this prison before you came here? 16% 18% 17% 17% 2.2 When you arrived at this prison, did you spend less than 2 hours in reception? 43% 44% 42% 45% 2.3 When you were searched in reception, was this done in a respectful way? 75% 83% 73% 82% 2.4 Overall, were you treated very / quite well in reception? 76% 83% 75% 82% 2.5 When you first arrived, did you have any problems? 78% 75% 78% 76%

In this table the following analyses is presented: - responses of prisoners from black and minority ethnic groups are compared with those of white prisoners - Muslim prisoners’ responses are compared with those of non-Muslim prisoners Please note that these analyses are based on responses from prisoners in male establishments only.

Shading is used to indicate statistical significance,* as follows:

Green shading shows results that are significantly more positive than the comparator Blue shading shows results that are significantly more negative than the comparator Orange shading shows significant differences in demographics and background information No shading means that differences are not significant and may have occurred by chance Grey shading indicates that we have no valid comparator data for this question * Less than 1% probability that the difference is due to chance.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 97 APPENDIX FIVE 98 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.5 5.2 5.1 4.4 Do yougetenough toeatatmeal-timesalways/most ofthetime? Is thequalityoffoodinthisprison very/quitegood? FOOD ANDCANTEEN clean? Are thecommunal/sharedareasof yourwingorhouseblocknormallyvery/quite – Canyougetyourstoredproperty ifyouneedit? – Isitnormallyquietenoughforyoutorelaxorsleepatnight? – Doyougetcellcleaningmaterialseveryweek? – Doyouhavecleansheetseveryweek? – Canyoushowereveryday? – Doyounormallyhaveenoughclean,suitableclothesfortheweek? On thewingorhouseblockyoucurrentlyliveon: Is yourcellcallbellnormallyansweredwithin5minutes? Are youinacellonyourown? ON THEWING Did yourinductioncovereverythingyouneededtoknowaboutthisprison? For thosewhohavehadaninduction: Have youhadaninductionatthisprison? – NumbersputonyourPINphone? – FreePINphonecredit? – Accesstotheprisonshop/canteen? In yourfirstfewdayshere,didyouget: Did youfeelsafeonyourfirstnighthere? On yourfirstnightinthisprison,wascellvery/quiteclean? – Noneofthese? – Supportfromanotherprisoner(e.g.Insiderorbuddy)? – ThechancetotalkaListenerorSamaritans? – Thechancetoseesomeonefromhealthcare? – Somethingtoeat? – Afreephonecall? – Ashower? – Toiletries /otherbasicitems? – Tobacco ornicotinereplacement? Before youwerelockeduponyourfirstnight,offered: FIRST NIGHTANDINDUCTION Did staffhelpyoutodealwiththeseproblems? For thosewhohadanyproblemswhentheyfirstarrived: – Lostordelayedproperty? – Needingprotectionfromotherprisoners? – Gettingmedication? – Drugsoralcohol(e.g.withdrawal)? – Physicalhealthproblems? – Othermentalhealthproblems? – Feelingsuicidal? – Feelingdepressed? – Housingworries? – Moneyworries? – Contactingemployers? – Arrangingcareforchildrenorotherdependents? – Contactingfamily? – Gettingphonenumbers? Did youhaveproblemswith: Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW ales 32% 31% 34% 51% 21% 62% 50% 60% 80% 62% 19% 59% 48% 91% 41% 45% 36% 64% 20% 21% 59% 73% 48% 35% 50% 58% 28% 29% 18% 13% 14% 32% 15% 20% 36% 34% 8% 7% 7% 9% 5% 3% Black and minority ethnic men 39% 36% 41% 61% 26% 62% 59% 70% 87% 66% 25% 60% 56% 90% 43% 51% 38% 72% 23% 26% 59% 74% 46% 38% 52% 69% 34% 19% 24% 16% 25% 37% 15% 20% 33% 33% 18% 13% 6% 8% 4% 3% White men 31% 30% 33% 51% 22% 60% 51% 61% 83% 63% 19% 61% 49% 91% 43% 45% 37% 60% 19% 20% 57% 71% 45% 36% 46% 60% 29% 31% 18% 12% 13% 30% 12% 18% 36% 35% 9% 8% 3% 3% 8% 8% Muslim 38% 36% 40% 59% 25% 63% 57% 68% 85% 65% 24% 59% 54% 90% 42% 50% 37% 71% 23% 25% 60% 75% 46% 38% 53% 67% 32% 20% 23% 15% 23% 36% 15% 20% 34% 32% 15% 13% 6% 8% 4% 3% Non-Muslim 10.3 10.2 10.1 5.3 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.4 FAITH Are applicationsusuallydealtwith within 7days? For thosewhohavemadeanapplication: APPLICATIONS, COMPLAINTSANDLEGALRIGHTS For thosewhogetvisits: Sunday? Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellonatypicalSaturday or Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellonatypicalweekday? For thosewhoknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposedtobe: TIME OUTOFCELL For thosewhogetvisits: CONTACT WITHFAMILY ANDFRIENDS For thosewhohaveareligion: If so,dothingssometimeschange? For thosewhohaveapersonalofficer: RELATIONSHIPS WITHSTAFF Is iteasyforyoutomakeacomplaint? Are applicationsusuallydealtwith fairly? Is iteasyforyoutomakeanapplication? Does thelibraryhaveawideenoughrangeofmaterialstomeetyourneeds? Do youtypicallygotothelibraryonceaweekormore? Do youtypicallygotothegymtwiceaweekormore? to? Could yougooutsideforexercisemorethan5daysinatypicalweek, ifyouwanted Do yougetassociationmorethan5daysinatypicalweek,ifwant it? Do youhavetimetododomesticsmorethan5daysinatypicalweek? Sunday? Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellonatypicalSaturdayor Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellonatypicalweekday? Are thesetimesusuallykeptto? Do youknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposedtobehere? Are yourvisitorsusuallytreatedrespectfullybystaff? Do visitsusuallystartandfinishontime? Do yougetvisitsfromfamily/friendsonceaweekormore? Is itvery/quiteeasyforyourfamilyandfriendstogethere? Are youabletouseaphoneeveryday(ifhavecredit)? Have youhadanyproblemswithsendingorreceivingmail(lettersparcels)? Have staffhereencouragedyoutokeepintouchwithyourfamily/friends? Are youabletoattendreligiousservices,ifwantto? Are youabletospeakaChaplainofyourfaithinprivate,ifwantto? Are yourreligiousbeliefsrespectedhere? Do youhaveareligion? issues? Are prisonershereconsultedaboutthingslikefood,canteen,healthcareorwing Do youfeelthataretreatedasanindividualinthisprison? prisoners? Do youregularlyseeprisongovernors,directorsorseniormanagerstalkingto Is yourpersonalornamedofficervery/quitehelpful? Do youhaveapersonalofficer? on? In thelastweek,hasanymemberofstafftalkedtoyouabouthowaregetting Are thereanystaffhereyoucouldturntoifhadaproblem? Do moststaffheretreatyouwithrespect? Does theshop/canteensellthingsthatyouneed? HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 31% 28% 56% 40% 65% 42% 46% 55% 54% 53% 45% 33% 23% 48% 86% 65% 41% 21% 38% 81% 58% 22% 87% 66% 65% 87% 47% 37% 41% 71% 24% 59% 56% 46% 4% 7% 7% Black and minority ethnic men Annual 2018 Report 39% 34% 60% 55% 73% 64% 48% 43% 64% 62% 56% 32% 11% 24% 60% 89% 77% 50% 19% 38% 88% 54% 31% 86% 70% 71% 62% 48% 44% 49% 73% 32% 73% 74% 64% 6% 9% White men APPENDIX FIVE 100% 31% 26% 54% 37% 63% 46% 46% 55% 54% 53% 45% 34% 22% 46% 88% 61% 41% 22% 35% 81% 57% 23% 88% 69% 64% 48% 36% 41% 72% 23% 56% 54% 48% 4% 8% 7%

– Muslim 19 38% 33% 64% 60% 53% 72% 59% 48% 45% 62% 61% 54% 32% 24% 59% 88% 75% 48% 19% 39% 87% 55% 30% 86% 69% 70% 47% 43% 47% 72% 31% 71% 71% 61% 10% 5% 9% Non-Muslim 99 APPENDIX FIVE 100 14.2 14.1 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.2 12.1 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.1 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.4 Do youfeelunsafenow? Have youeverfeltunsafehere? SAFETY Is itvery/quiteeasytogetalcoholinthisprison? Is itvery/quiteeasytogetillicitdrugsinthisprison? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourdrugprobleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveadrugproblem: you havebeeninthisprison? Have youdevelopedaproblemwithtakingmedicationnotprescribed toyousince Have youdevelopedaproblemwithillicitdrugssincehavebeen in thisprison? and medicationnotprescribedtoyou)? Did youhaveadrugproblemwhencameintothisprison(including illicitdrugs Have youbeenhelpedwithyouralcoholprobleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveanalcoholproblem: Did youhaveanalcoholproblemwhencameintothisprison? ALCOHOL ANDDRUGS Is itvery/quiteeasyforyoutospeakaListenerifneedto? Did youfeelcaredforbystaff? For thosewhohavebeenonanACCT: Have youbeenonanACCTinthisprison? Are yougettingthesupportneed? For thosewhohaveadisability: Do youconsideryourselftohaveadisability? OTHER SUPPORTNEEDS Do youthinktheoverallqualityofhealthserviceshereisvery/quitegood? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourmentalhealthproblemsinthisprison? For thosewhohavementalhealthproblems: Do youhaveanymentalhealthproblems? – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Do youthinkthequalityofhealthserviceisvery/quitegoodfrom: – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Is itvery/quiteeasytosee: HEALTH CARE you werenotpresent? Have staffhereeveropenedlettersfromyoursolicitororlegalrepresentativewhen For thosewhohavehadlegalletters: Get bailinformation? Attend legalvisits? Communicate withyoursolicitororlegalrepresentative? For thosewhoneedit,isiteasyto: Have youeverbeenpreventedfrommakingacomplaintherewhenwantedto? Are complaintsusuallydealtwithwithin7days? Are complaintsusuallydealtwithfairly? For thosewhohavemadeacomplaint: Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW ales 27% 53% 22% 34% 38% 10% 18% 53% 10% 32% 45% 11% 28% 23% 39% 34% 30% 22% 32% 53% 46% 20% 15% 51% 31% 56% 13% 48% 40% 31% 22% 22% 7% Black and minority ethnic men 23% 50% 31% 54% 52% 17% 33% 58% 20% 44% 48% 21% 32% 38% 43% 41% 48% 28% 33% 59% 48% 24% 16% 55% 32% 53% 19% 54% 44% 27% 25% 31% 11% White men 31% 54% 24% 37% 29% 12% 19% 44% 33% 44% 12% 22% 22% 36% 30% 29% 19% 31% 50% 44% 19% 13% 48% 28% 59% 14% 49% 40% 33% 21% 19% 9% 8% Muslim 23% 50% 29% 50% 52% 15% 30% 59% 41% 48% 19% 32% 36% 43% 40% 45% 28% 33% 59% 48% 24% 16% 55% 33% 53% 17% 53% 43% 27% 25% 31% 18% 10% Non-Muslim 14.3 16.1 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.1 14.6 14.5 14.4 16.3 16.2 EDUCATION, SKILLSANDWORK Could youusethephoneeveryday(ifhadcredit)? Could yougooutsideforexerciseeveryday? – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Education? For thosewhohavedonethefollowingactivities,doyouthinktheywill helpyouonrelease: – Notexperiencedanyofthesefromstaffhere – Notexperiencedanyofthesefromprisonershere – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Otherbullying/victimisation? – Otherbullying/victimisation? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? – Prisonjob? – Prisonjob? – Physicalassault? – Physicalassault? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Vocational orskillstraining? Could youshowereveryday? For thosewhohavebeenrestrainedinthelast6months: BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT – Threatsorintimidation? – Threatsorintimidation? Do staffencourage youtoattendeducation,training orwork? – Education? In thisprison,haveyoudonethefollowingactivities: – Education? In thisprison,isiteasytogetintothefollowingactivities: Were youtreatedwellbysegregationstaff? For thosewhohavespentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunitlast6months: 6 months? Have youspentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunitthisprisonlast Did anyonecomeandtalktoyouaboutitafterwards? Have youbeenphysicallyrestrainedbystaffinthisprison,thelast6months? IEP) inthisprison? Do youfeelhavebeentreatedfairlyinthebehaviourmanagementscheme(e.g. behave well? Do theincentivesorrewardsinthisprison(e.g.enhancedstatus)encourageyouto If youwerebeingbullied/victimisedbystaffhere,wouldreportit? – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromstaffhere: If youwerebeingbullied/victimisedbyotherprisonershere,wouldreportit? – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromotherprisonershere: HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 51% 61% 56% 65% 59% 38% 67% 63% 49% 58% 37% 22% 16% 38% 13% 23% 78% 34% 14% 16% 67% 28% 31% 26% 48% 81% 51% 47% 11% 19% 15% 27% 36% 46% 36% 30% 29% 3% 4% 3% 2% Black and minority ethnic men Annual 2018 Report 57% 71% 61% 58% 52% 42% 61% 59% 61% 51% 31% 14% 19% 32% 27% 78% 45% 10% 19% 62% 35% 22% 33% 54% 75% 58% 60% 20% 12% 42% 40% 47% 29% 34% 37% 8% 4% 6% 2% 3% 9% White men APPENDIX FIVE 55% 64% 56% 66% 60% 37% 66% 63% 44% 58% 38% 23% 16% 39% 13% 24% 79% 34% 17% 16% 68% 29% 34% 27% 45% 81% 52% 43% 13% 16% 18% 26% 35% 43% 39% 31% 30% 4% 4% 3% 2%

– Muslim 19 54% 68% 59% 59% 53% 41% 63% 59% 60% 52% 31% 15% 18% 33% 26% 77% 43% 10% 18% 62% 34% 22% 31% 54% 76% 57% 60% 21% 12% 40% 40% 47% 29% 33% 35% 9% 4% 6% 2% 2% 9%

101 Non-Muslim APPENDIX FIVE 102 20.1 18.4 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.1 17.4 17.3 17.2 17.1 – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? – Socialcaresupport? the future? Do youthinkyourexperiencesinthisprisonhavemadelesslikely tooffendin FINAL QUESTIONABOUTTHISPRISON – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? – Socialcaresupport? – Health/mentalhealthsupport? – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Are yougettinghelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased,ifneedit: – Health/mentalhealthsupport? – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Do youneedhelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased: Is anybodyhelpingyoutoprepareforyourrelease? Is thisprisonvery/quiteneartoyourhomeareaorintendedreleaseaddress? For thosewhoexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months: Do youexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months? PREPARATION FORRELEASE – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? For thosewhohavedonethefollowing,didtheyhelpyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets: – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? In thisprison,haveyoudone: Are staffhelpingyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets? Do youunderstandwhatneedtodoachieveyourobjectivesortargets? For thosewhohaveacustodyplan: Do youhaveacustodyplan? PLANNING ANDPROGRESSION Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW ales 36% 34% 50% 21% 16% 24% 31% 11% 19% 17% 21% 28% 39% 33% 58% 62% 57% 67% 58% 46% 43% 23% 60% 41% 59% 65% 71% 22% 20% 36% 44% 52% 37% 83% 51% Black and minority ethnic men 40% 37% 51% 32% 21% 29% 48% 24% 27% 20% 24% 36% 54% 50% 55% 68% 45% 58% 64% 54% 50% 25% 70% 55% 72% 68% 72% 20% 20% 37% 43% 48% 51% 83% 49% White men 37% 31% 49% 28% 13% 17% 22% 14% 19% 19% 22% 28% 37% 35% 57% 58% 57% 64% 54% 44% 40% 20% 61% 48% 62% 64% 73% 24% 21% 42% 48% 56% 38% 83% 53% Muslim 39% 37% 51% 51% 30% 20% 29% 47% 21% 25% 20% 23% 34% 46% 55% 66% 47% 60% 63% 52% 50% 26% 68% 52% 69% 68% 72% 20% 19% 36% 43% 48% 49% 83% 49% Non-Muslim APPENDIX FIVE

Prisoner survey responses (adult men): foreign nationals/travellers Travellers Non-travellers British nationals Foreign nationals

Number of completed questionnaires returned 548 5,133 287 5,349 DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.2 Are you under 21 years of age? 7% 7% 10% 7% Are you 25 years of age or younger? 22% 24% 25% 24% Are you 50 years of age or older? 8% 15% 6% 14% Are you 70 years of age or older? 0% 1% 0% 1% 1.3 Are you from a minority ethnic group? 48% 29% 11% 32% 1.4 Have you been in this prison for less than 6 months? 51% 42% 45% 43% 1.5 Are you currently serving a sentence? 77% 89% 84% 88% Are you on recall? 3% 9% 15% 8% 1.6 Is your sentence less than 12 months? 13% 11% 9% 11% Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)? 1% 4% 4% 3% 7.1 Are you Muslim? 29% 16% 6% 17% 11.3 Do you have any mental health problems? 22% 45% 54% 42% 12.1 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 20% 35% 51% 33% 19.1 Do you have any children under the age of 18? 47% 50% 65% 49% 19.2 Are you a foreign national? 14% 9% 19.3 Are you from a traveller community (e.g. Gypsy, Roma, Irish Traveller)? 8% 5% 19.4 Have you ever been in the armed services? 16% 6% 13% 6% 19.5 Is your gender female or non-binary? 3% 1% 5% 1% 19.6 Are you homosexual, bisexual or other sexual orientation? 5% 4% 8% 4% 19.7 Do you identify as transgender or transsexual? 3% 2% 10% 1% ARRIVAL AND RECEPTION 2.1 Were you given up-to-date information about this prison before you came here? 20% 17% 18% 17% 2.2 When you arrived at this prison, did you spend less than 2 hours in reception? 47% 44% 38% 45% 2.3 When you were searched in reception, was this done in a respectful way? 80% 81% 76% 81% 2.4 Overall, were you treated very / quite well in reception? 77% 81% 76% 81% 2.5 When you first arrived, did you have any problems? 76% 76% 83% 76%

In this table the following analyses is presented: - responses of foreign national prisoners are compared with those of British national prisoners - responses of prisoners from traveller communities are compared with those of prisoners not from traveller communities Please note that these analyses are based on responses from prisoners in male establishments only.

Shading is used to indicate statistical significance,* as follows:

Green shading shows results that are significantly more positive than the comparator Blue shading shows results that are significantly more negative than the comparator Orange shading shows significant differences in demographics and background information No shading means that differences are not significant and may have occurred by chance Grey shading indicates that we have no valid comparator data for this question * Less than 1% probability that the difference is due to chance.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 103 APPENDIX FIVE 104 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.5 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.4 Does theshop/canteen sellthethingsthatyouneed? Do yougetenough toeatatmeal-timesalways/most ofthetime? Is thequalityoffoodinthisprison very/quitegood? FOOD ANDCANTEEN clean? Are thecommunal/sharedareasof yourwingorhouseblocknormallyvery/quite – Canyougetyourstoredproperty ifyouneedit? – Isitnormallyquietenoughforyoutorelaxorsleepatnight? – Doyougetcellcleaningmaterialseveryweek? – Doyouhavecleansheetseveryweek? – Canyoushowereveryday? – Doyounormallyhaveenoughclean,suitableclothesfortheweek? On thewingorhouseblockyoucurrentlyliveon: Is yourcellcallbellnormallyansweredwithin5minutes? Are youinacellonyourown? ON THEWING Did yourinductioncovereverythingyouneededtoknowaboutthisprison? For thosewhohavehadaninduction: Have youhadaninductionatthisprison? – NumbersputonyourPINphone? – FreePINphonecredit? – Accesstotheprisonshop/canteen? In yourfirstfewdayshere,didyouget: Did youfeelsafeonyourfirstnighthere? On yourfirstnightinthisprison,wascellvery/quiteclean? – Noneofthese? – Supportfromanotherprisoner(e.g.Insiderorbuddy)? – ThechancetotalkaListenerorSamaritans? – Thechancetoseesomeonefromhealthcare? – Somethingtoeat? – Afreephonecall? – Ashower? – Toiletries /otherbasicitems? – Tobacco ornicotinereplacement? Before youwerelockeduponyourfirstnight,offered: FIRST NIGHTANDINDUCTION Did staffhelpyoutodealwiththeseproblems? For thosewhohadanyproblemswhentheyfirstarrived: – Lostordelayedproperty? – Needingprotectionfromotherprisoners? – Gettingmedication? – Drugsoralcohol(e.g.withdrawal)? – Physicalhealthproblems? – Othermentalhealthproblems? – Feelingsuicidal? – Feelingdepressed? – Housingworries? – Moneyworries? – Contactingemployers? – Arrangingcareforchildrenorotherdependents? – Contactingfamily? – Gettingphonenumbers? Did youhaveproblemswith: Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW ales 49% 39% 48% 63% 28% 60% 58% 67% 80% 65% 32% 55% 55% 87% 47% 47% 48% 63% 44% 23% 24% 52% 72% 40% 41% 62% 56% 34% 22% 16% 10% 13% 32% 13% 23% 34% 32% 8% 6% 5% 9% 6% 4% Foreign nationals 60% 34% 38% 57% 24% 62% 56% 66% 85% 65% 22% 60% 53% 90% 42% 49% 36% 70% 22% 25% 60% 74% 47% 37% 50% 67% 31% 22% 23% 16% 23% 36% 15% 20% 34% 33% 15% 12% 36% 6% 8% 4% 3% British nationals 58% 33% 39% 52% 25% 57% 54% 62% 78% 56% 20% 57% 51% 92% 41% 54% 40% 61% 25% 25% 51% 64% 45% 31% 41% 66% 30% 26% 26% 21% 28% 41% 15% 24% 39% 36% 13% 20% 19% 32% 9% 7% 5% Travellers 59% 35% 39% 59% 25% 62% 56% 67% 85% 65% 23% 60% 53% 90% 43% 49% 37% 70% 22% 25% 60% 75% 46% 38% 52% 66% 32% 22% 22% 15% 21% 35% 15% 20% 34% 33% 14% 12% 37% 6% 4% 3% 8% Non-travellers 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5 FAITH Are applicationsusuallydealtwith within 7days? For thosewhohavemadeanapplication: APPLICATIONS, COMPLAINTSANDLEGALRIGHTS For thosewhogetvisits: Sunday? Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellonatypicalSaturday Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellonatypicalweekday? For thosewhoknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposedtobe: TIME OUTOFCELL For thosewhogetvisits: CONTACT WITHFAMILY ANDFRIENDS For thosewhohaveareligion: If so,dothingssometimeschange? For thosewhohaveapersonalofficer: Is iteasyforyoutomakeacomplaint? Are applicationsusuallydealtwith fairly? Is iteasyforyoutomakeanapplication? Does thelibraryhaveawideenoughrangeofmaterialstomeetyourneeds? Do youtypicallygotothelibraryonceaweekormore? Do youtypicallygotothegymtwiceaweekormore? to? Could yougooutsideforexercisemorethan5daysinatypicalweek, ifyouwanted Do yougetassociationmorethan5daysinatypicalweek,ifwant it? Do youhavetimetododomesticsmorethan5daysinatypicalweek? Sunday? Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellonatypicalSaturdayor Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellonatypicalweekday? Are thesetimesusuallykeptto? Do youknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposedtobehere? Are yourvisitorsusuallytreatedrespectfullybystaff? Do visitsusuallystartandfinishontime? Do yougetvisitsfromfamily/friendsonceaweekormore? Is itvery/quiteeasyforyourfamilyandfriendstogethere? Are youabletouseaphoneeveryday(ifhavecredit)? Have youhadanyproblemswithsendingorreceivingmail(lettersparcels)? Have staffhereencouragedyoutokeepintouchwithyourfamily/friends? Are youabletoattendreligiousservices,ifwantto? Are youabletospeakaChaplainofyourfaithinprivate,ifwantto? Are yourreligiousbeliefsrespectedhere? Do youhaveareligion? issues? Are prisonershereconsultedaboutthingslikefood,canteen,healthcareorwing Do youfeelthataretreatedasanindividualinthisprison? prisoners? Do youregularlyseeprisongovernors,directorsorseniormanagerstalkingto Is yourpersonalornamedofficervery/quitehelpful? Do youhaveapersonalofficer? on? In thelastweek,hasanymemberofstafftalkedtoyouabouthowaregetting Are thereanystaffhereyoucouldturntoifhadaproblem? Do moststaffheretreatyouwithrespect? RELATIONSHIPS WITHSTAFF HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 39% 33% 49% 45% 64% 41% 53% 53% 49% 44% 47% 33% 24% 54% 86% 75% 53% 18% 24% 84% 49% 31% 81% 59% 71% 89% 49% 46% 46% 76% 29% 67% 65% 2% 5% 9%

Foreign nationals Annual 2018 Report 36% 32% 60% 51% 72% 59% 47% 46% 62% 61% 54% 32% 10% 23% 57% 88% 72% 46% 19% 40% 86% 56% 28% 87% 70% 68% 68% 47% 41% 47% 72% 30% 69% 68% 6% 8% British nationals APPENDIX FIVE 37% 38% 60% 47% 69% 60% 50% 45% 51% 48% 47% 37% 36% 56% 81% 74% 49% 25% 35% 83% 58% 36% 79% 66% 69% 80% 50% 39% 51% 68% 34% 66% 64% 11% 3% 6%

– Travellers 19 36% 32% 59% 51% 71% 57% 47% 46% 61% 60% 53% 32% 23% 57% 88% 73% 47% 19% 38% 86% 55% 28% 87% 69% 69% 69% 47% 42% 46% 73% 30% 69% 68% 10% 5% 8%

105 Non-travellers APPENDIX FIVE 106 14.2 14.1 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.2 12.1 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.1 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.4 Do youfeelunsafenow? Have youeverfeltunsafehere? SAFETY Is itvery/quiteeasytogetalcoholinthisprison? Is itvery/quiteeasytogetillicitdrugsinthisprison? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourdrugprobleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveadrugproblem: you havebeeninthisprison? Have youdevelopedaproblemwithtakingmedicationnotprescribed toyousince Have youdevelopedaproblemwithillicitdrugssincehavebeen in thisprison? and medicationnotprescribedtoyou)? Did youhaveadrugproblemwhencameintothisprison(including illicitdrugs Have youbeenhelpedwithyouralcoholprobleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveanalcoholproblem: Did youhaveanalcoholproblemwhencameintothisprison? ALCOHOL ANDDRUGS Is itvery/quiteeasyforyoutospeakaListenerifneedto? Did youfeelcaredforbystaff? For thosewhohavebeenonanACCT: Have youbeenonanACCTinthisprison? Are yougettingthesupportneed? For thosewhohaveadisability: Do youconsideryourselftohaveadisability? OTHER SUPPORTNEEDS Do youthinktheoverallqualityofhealthserviceshereisvery/quitegood? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourmentalhealthproblemsinthisprison? For thosewhohavementalhealthproblems: Do youhaveanymentalhealthproblems? – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Do youthinkthequalityofhealthserviceisvery/quitegoodfrom: – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Is itvery/quiteeasytosee: HEALTH CARE you werenotpresent? Have staffhereeveropenedlettersfromyoursolicitororlegalrepresentativewhen For thosewhohavehadlegalletters: Get bailinformation? Attend legalvisits? Communicate withyoursolicitororlegalrepresentative? For thosewhoneedit,isiteasyto: Have youeverbeenpreventedfrommakingacomplaintherewhenwantedto? Are complaintsusuallydealtwithwithin7days? Are complaintsusuallydealtwithfairly? For thosewhohavemadeacomplaint: Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW ales 50% 27% 52% 16% 24% 41% 10% 14% 51% 12% 35% 10% 33% 20% 40% 38% 22% 21% 32% 53% 45% 20% 14% 50% 31% 46% 16% 42% 37% 26% 26% 29% 7% Foreign nationals 47% 24% 50% 29% 50% 50% 10% 30% 58% 17% 40% 19% 31% 35% 42% 39% 45% 27% 33% 58% 48% 23% 16% 54% 32% 55% 16% 53% 43% 28% 24% 28% 16% British nationals 41% 34% 58% 40% 55% 48% 18% 40% 64% 26% 46% 31% 38% 51% 42% 43% 54% 33% 35% 57% 48% 29% 19% 55% 36% 62% 25% 53% 45% 40% 24% 26% 24% Travellers 48% 24% 50% 27% 47% 49% 28% 57% 16% 40% 17% 30% 33% 42% 39% 42% 26% 33% 57% 47% 23% 16% 54% 32% 53% 16% 52% 42% 27% 24% 28% 14% 9% Non-travellers 14.3 16.1 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.1 14.6 14.5 14.4 16.2 – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Education? For thosewhohavedonethefollowingactivities,doyouthinktheywill helpyouonrelease: – Notexperiencedanyofthesefromprisonershere – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Otherbullying/victimisation? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Notexperiencedanyofthesefromstaffhere – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? – Prisonjob? – Prisonjob? – Otherbullying/victimisation? – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? – Physicalassault? – Physicalassault? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Vocational orskillstraining? Could youshowereveryday? For thosewhohavebeenrestrainedinthelast6months: BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT – Threatsorintimidation? – Threatsorintimidation? – Education? In thisprison,haveyoudonethefollowingactivities: – Education? In thisprison,isiteasytogetintothefollowingactivities: Were youtreatedwellbysegregationstaff? For thosewhohavespentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunitlast6months: 6 months? Have youspentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunitthisprisonlast Did anyonecomeandtalktoyouaboutitafterwards? Have youbeenphysicallyrestrainedbystaffinthisprison,thelast6months? IEP) inthisprison? Do youfeelhavebeentreatedfairlyinthebehaviourmanagementscheme(e.g. behave well? Do theincentivesorrewardsinthisprison(e.g.enhancedstatus)encourageyouto If youwerebeingbullied/victimisedbystaffhere,wouldreportit? – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromstaffhere: If youwerebeingbullied/victimisedbyotherprisonershere,wouldreportit? – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromotherprisonershere: EDUCATION, SKILLSANDWORK Could youusethephoneeveryday(ifhadcredit)? Could yougooutsideforexerciseeveryday? HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 59% 55% 48% 65% 70% 60% 32% 12% 33% 65% 23% 71% 38% 11% 11% 58% 26% 55% 17% 18% 78% 52% 74% 24% 13% 30% 38% 57% 22% 46% 22% 41% 72% 5% 5% 2% 8% 2% 7% 7%

Foreign nationals Annual 2018 Report 60% 54% 40% 63% 59% 52% 32% 18% 34% 56% 26% 79% 42% 17% 19% 64% 34% 10% 12% 25% 32% 77% 57% 54% 19% 13% 38% 39% 45% 32% 31% 36% 10% 55% 66% 59% 4% 6% 2% 2% British nationals APPENDIX FIVE 69% 58% 52% 60% 66% 45% 49% 20% 51% 46% 33% 13% 81% 34% 18% 22% 71% 31% 17% 16% 29% 34% 80% 50% 65% 24% 20% 37% 39% 49% 35% 38% 40% 18% 55% 67% 57% 9% 6% 5%

– Travellers 19 60% 54% 40% 63% 60% 53% 32% 18% 33% 58% 26% 78% 42% 16% 18% 63% 33% 11% 24% 31% 77% 57% 54% 19% 13% 38% 39% 46% 31% 32% 34% 54% 67% 58% 5% 4% 2% 2% 9% 9%

107 Non-travellers APPENDIX FIVE 108 20.1 18.4 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.1 17.4 17.3 17.2 17.1 16.3 – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? – Socialcaresupport? – Health/mentalhealthsupport? the future? Do youthinkyourexperiencesinthisprisonhavemadelesslikely tooffendin FINAL QUESTIONABOUTTHISPRISON – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? – Socialcaresupport? – Health/mentalhealthsupport? – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Are yougettinghelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased,ifneedit: – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Do youneedhelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased: Is anybodyhelpingyoutoprepareforyourrelease? Is thisprisonvery/quiteneartoyourhomeareaorintendedreleaseaddress? For thosewhoexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months: Do youexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months? PREPARATION FORRELEASE – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? For thosewhohavedonethefollowing,didtheyhelpyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets: – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? In thisprison,haveyoudone: Are staffhelpingyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets? Do youunderstandwhatneedtodoachieveyourobjectivesortargets? For thosewhohaveacustodyplan: Do youhaveacustodyplan? PLANNING ANDPROGRESSION Do staffencourageyoutoattendeducation,trainingorwork? Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW ales 46% 32% 33% 52% 37% 17% 30% 30% 19% 18% 25% 28% 25% 31% 53% 50% 55% 53% 55% 38% 34% 31% 41% 50% 70% 66% 77% 18% 21% 32% 36% 35% 47% 80% 40% 50% Foreign nationals 38% 37% 51% 51% 28% 20% 28% 46% 20% 26% 19% 22% 35% 47% 56% 67% 48% 62% 63% 53% 50% 24% 68% 51% 68% 67% 72% 21% 19% 37% 44% 51% 46% 83% 51% 53% British nationals 60% 47% 58% 49% 35% 32% 38% 46% 33% 37% 35% 30% 41% 57% 61% 66% 61% 61% 64% 61% 53% 30% 60% 50% 71% 59% 67% 37% 42% 55% 59% 64% 50% 78% 46% 51% Travellers 38% 36% 49% 45% 51% 29% 19% 28% 45% 19% 24% 18% 22% 33% 56% 66% 48% 61% 62% 51% 48% 25% 67% 51% 67% 68% 72% 20% 19% 36% 43% 49% 46% 83% 50% 53% Non-travellers APPENDIX FIVE

Prisoner survey responses (adult men): disability, over 50 and under 25 Over 50 Over 25 Under 50 disability 25 and under Do not have a Do not have a Have a disability

Number of completed questionnaires returned 1,927 3,793 808 5,100 1,445 4,463 DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.2 Are you under 21 years of age? 6% 7% 8% 29% Are you 25 years of age or younger? 20% 26% Are you 50 years of age or older? 17% 12% 18% Are you 70 years of age or older? 2% 1% 8% 1.3 Are you from a minority ethnic group? 21% 36% 17% 33% 43% 27% 1.4 Have you been in this prison for less than 6 months? 46% 41% 34% 45% 44% 43% 1.5 Are you currently serving a sentence? 86% 89% 92% 87% 86% 88% Are you on recall? 12% 7% 6% 9% 7% 9% 1.6 Is your sentence less than 12 months? 14% 9% 9% 11% 11% 11% Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public 4% 3% 4% 3% 0% 4% protection (IPP prisoner)? 7.1 Are you Muslim? 11% 20% 5% 19% 24% 15% 11.3 Do you have any mental health problems? 77% 25% 32% 44% 40% 43% 12.1 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 40% 33% 28% 35% 19.1 Do you have any children under the age of 18? 50% 50% 25% 54% 32% 56% 19.2 Are you a foreign national? 6% 11% 6% 10% 9% 10% Are you from a traveller community (e.g. Gypsy, Roma, Irish 19.3 8% 4% 2% 6% 5% 5% Traveller)? 19.4 Have you ever been in the armed services? 8% 6% 14% 5% 3% 8% 19.5 Is your gender female or non-binary? 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 19.6 Are you homosexual, bisexual or other sexual orientation? 5% 3% 5% 4% 3% 4% 19.7 Do you identify as transgender or transsexual? 3% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% ARRIVAL AND RECEPTION Were you given up-to-date information about this prison before 2.1 15% 18% 18% 17% 16% 18% you came here? When you arrived at this prison, did you spend less than 2.2 39% 47% 47% 43% 44% 44% 2 hours in reception? When you were searched in reception, was this done in a 2.3 76% 83% 87% 79% 74% 82% respectful way? 2.4 Overall, were you treated very / quite well in reception? 77% 82% 87% 80% 75% 82% 2.5 When you first arrived, did you have any problems? 90% 69% 73% 77% 75% 76%

In this table the following analyses is presented: - responses of prisoners who reported that they had a disability compared with those who did not - responses of prisoners aged 50 and over are compared with those prisoners under 50 - responses of prisoners aged 25 and under are compared with those of prisoners over 25 Please note that these analyses are based on responses from prisoners in male establishments only.

Shading is used to indicate statistical significance,* as follows:

Green shading shows results that are significantly more positive than the comparator Blue shading shows results that are significantly more negative than the comparator Orange shading shows significant differences in demographics and background information No shading means that differences are not significant and may have occurred by chance Grey shading indicates that we have no valid comparator data for this question * Less than 1% probability that the difference is due to chance.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2018–19 109 APPENDIX FIVE 110 4.3 4.2 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.6 2.5 4.4 – Noneofthese? – Supportfromanotherprisoner(e.g.Insiderorbuddy)? – ThechancetotalkaListenerorSamaritans? – Thechancetoseesomeonefromhealthcare? – Somethingtoeat? – Afreephonecall? – Canyougetyourstoredproperty ifyouneedit? – Isitnormallyquietenoughforyou torelaxorsleepatnight? – Doyougetcellcleaningmaterials everyweek? – Doyouhavecleansheetseveryweek? – Canyoushowereveryday? normally very/quiteclean? Are thecommunal/sharedareasof yourwingorhouseblock – On thewingorhouseblockyoucurrentlyliveon: Is yourcellcallbellnormallyansweredwithin5minutes? Are youinacellonyourown? ON THEWING this prison? Did yourinductioncovereverythingyouneededtoknowabout For thosewhohavehadaninduction: Have youhadaninductionatthisprison? – NumbersputonyourPINphone? – FreePINphonecredit? – Accesstotheprisonshop/canteen? In yourfirstfewdayshere,didyouget: Did youfeelsafeonyourfirstnighthere? clean? On yourfirstnightinthisprison,wascellvery/quite – Ashower? – Toiletries /otherbasicitems? – Tobacco ornicotinereplacement? Before youwerelockeduponyourfirstnight,offered: FIRST NIGHTANDINDUCTION Did staffhelpyoutodealwiththeseproblems? For thosewhohadanyproblemswhentheyfirstarrived: – Lostordelayedproperty? – Needingprotectionfromotherprisoners? – Gettingmedication? – Drugsoralcohol(e.g.withdrawal)? – Physicalhealthproblems? – Othermentalhealthproblems? – Feelingsuicidal? – Feelingdepressed? – Housingworries? – Moneyworries? – Contactingemployers? – Arrangingcareforchildrenorotherdependents? – Contactingfamily? – Gettingphonenumbers? Did youhaveproblemswith: Annual 2018 Report week? Do younormallyhaveenoughclean,suitableclothesforthe – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW 21% 23% 61% 72% 43% 32% 22% 55% 54% 64% 81% 58% 57% 23% 61% 49% 87% 39% 48% 35% 60% 34% 48% 65% 31% 24% 13% 37% 23% 30% 43% 22% 53% 23% 28% 38% 37% 7% 4% 4% ales Have a disability 23% 26% 59% 76% 48% 40% 26% 66% 57% 68% 87% 69% 59% 23% 59% 56% 91% 45% 50% 39% 74% 39% 53% 65% 32% 21% 15% 11% 26% 11% 16% 32% 31% 7% 5% 9% 7% 7% 4% 2% Do not have a disability 24% 23% 55% 72% 38% 37% 31% 68% 68% 81% 90% 81% 76% 29% 69% 58% 88% 46% 43% 40% 73% 55% 55% 53% 43% 16% 23% 24% 14% 10% 32% 16% 16% 27% 29% 6% 6% 9% 3% 2% Over 50 22% 25% 60% 74% 48% 38% 24% 61% 54% 65% 84% 62% 55% 22% 58% 53% 90% 42% 50% 37% 69% 34% 51% 68% 30% 23% 22% 15% 13% 23% 12% 36% 15% 21% 35% 34% 7% 8% 4% 3% Under 50 17% 21% 56% 73% 49% 38% 19% 59% 46% 59% 79% 62% 51% 19% 55% 50% 91% 40% 47% 36% 66% 27% 49% 67% 24% 26% 15% 18% 12% 31% 12% 18% 35% 30% 8% 8% 8% 9% 3% 2% 25 and under 24% 26% 60% 75% 45% 37% 27% 63% 59% 69% 87% 66% 60% 24% 61% 55% 90% 43% 50% 38% 70% 40% 52% 65% 34% 21% 24% 23% 12% 37% 16% 21% 34% 34% 16% 17% 6% 8% 4% 3% Over 25 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 5.3 5.2 5.1 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 FAITH typical SaturdayorSunday? Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellona typical weekday? Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellona For thosewhoknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposedto be: TIME OUTOFCELL For thosewhogetvisits: CONTACT WITHFAMILY ANDFRIENDS For thosewhohaveareligion: If so,dothingssometimeschange? For thosewhohaveapersonalofficer: RELATIONSHIPS WITHSTAFF FOOD ANDCANTEEN Do youtypicallygotothelibraryonce aweekormore? Do youtypicallygotothegymtwice aweekormore? week, ifyouwantedto? Could yougooutsideforexercisemore than5daysinatypical you wantit? Do yougetassociationmorethan5 daysinatypicalweek,if week? Do youhavetimetododomesticsmorethan5daysinatypical typical SaturdayorSunday? Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellona typical weekday? Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellona Are thesetimesusuallykeptto? to behere? Do youknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposed Are yourvisitorsusuallytreatedrespectfullybystaff? Do visitsusuallystartandfinishontime? Do yougetvisitsfromfamily/friendsonceaweekormore? Is itvery/quiteeasyforyourfamilyandfriendstogethere? Are youabletouseaphoneeveryday(ifhavecredit)? (letters orparcels)? Have youhadanyproblemswithsendingorreceivingmail family /friends? Have staffhereencouragedyoutokeepintouchwithyour Are youabletoattendreligiousservices,ifwantto? you wantto? Are youabletospeakaChaplainofyourfaithinprivate,if Are yourreligiousbeliefsrespectedhere? Do youhaveareligion? health careorwingissues? Are prisonershereconsultedaboutthingslikefood,canteen, Do youfeelthataretreatedasanindividualinthisprison? managers talkingtoprisoners? Do youregularlyseeprisongovernors,directorsorsenior Is yourpersonalornamedofficervery/quitehelpful? Do youhaveapersonalofficer? how youaregettingon? In thelastweek,hasanymemberofstafftalkedtoyouabout Are thereanystaffhereyoucouldturntoifhadaproblem? Do moststaffheretreatyouwithrespect? Does theshop/canteensellthingsthatyouneed? time? Do yougetenoughtoeatatmeal-timesalways/mostofthe Is thequalityoffoodinthisprisonvery/quitegood? HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 30% 45% 36% 57% 56% 47% 39% 31% 54% 86% 69% 47% 15% 32% 83% 59% 27% 83% 66% 64% 70% 47% 39% 44% 70% 32% 68% 68% 59% 30% 37% 3% 7% 8% Have a disability 33% 11% 48% 52% 63% 62% 56% 29% 19% 58% 89% 74% 47% 21% 41% 87% 53% 29% 89% 70% 71% 70% 48% 43% 47% 74% 29% 70% 69% 58% 37% 40% 6% 8% Do not have a disability 42% 48% 29% 66% 70% 62% 26% 15% 18% 68% 90% 88% 60% 15% 38% 91% 44% 35% 89% 72% 75% 75% 51% 48% 58% 77% 38% 80% 85% 63% 52% 52% 10% 8%

Over 50 Annual 2018 Report 30% 47% 49% 60% 58% 51% 33% 25% 55% 88% 71% 45% 20% 38% 85% 57% 27% 86% 68% 67% 69% 47% 41% 44% 72% 28% 67% 65% 58% 32% 37% 5% 9% 8% Under 50 APPENDIX FIVE 64% 25% 37% 45% 57% 46% 41% 43% 30% 47% 86% 69% 39% 22% 37% 76% 64% 23% 85% 66% 68% 49% 38% 34% 73% 24% 58% 55% 59% 30% 33% 2% 4% 6%

– 25 and under 19 70% 34% 50% 47% 62% 64% 57% 29% 22% 60% 89% 74% 50% 18% 39% 89% 52% 30% 87% 69% 71% 47% 43% 50% 72% 32% 72% 72% 58% 36% 41% 12% 6% 9%

111 Over 25 APPENDIX FIVE 112 13.4 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.2 12.1 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.1 10.7 10.6 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 been inthisprison? Have youdevelopedaproblemwith illicitdrugssinceyouhave (including illicitdrugsandmedication notprescribedtoyou)? Did youhaveadrugproblemwhen youcameintothisprison Have youbeenhelpedwithyouralcohol probleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveanalcohol problem: prison? Did youhaveanalcoholproblemwhencameintothis ALCOHOL ANDDRUGS to? Is itvery/quiteeasyforyoutospeakaListenerifneed Did youfeelcaredforbystaff? For thosewhohavebeenonanACCT: Have youbeenonanACCTinthisprison? Are yougettingthesupportneed? For thosewhohaveadisability: Do youconsideryourselftohaveadisability? OTHER SUPPORTNEEDS very /quitegood? Do youthinktheoverallqualityofhealthserviceshereis prison? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourmentalhealthproblemsinthis For thosewhohavementalhealthproblems: Do youhaveanymentalhealthproblems? – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Do youthinkthequalityofhealthserviceisvery/quitegoodfrom: – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Is itvery/quiteeasytosee: HEALTH CARE representative whenyouwerenotpresent? Have staffhereeveropenedlettersfromyoursolicitororlegal For thosewhohavehadlegalletters: Get bailinformation? Attend legalvisits? Communicate withyoursolicitororlegalrepresentative? For thosewhoneedit,isiteasyto: when youwantedto? Have youeverbeenpreventedfrommakingacomplainthere Are complaintsusuallydealtwithwithin7days? Are complaintsusuallydealtwithfairly? For thosewhohavemadeacomplaint: Is iteasyforyoutomakeacomplaint? Are applicationsusuallydealtwithwithin7days? Are applicationsusuallydealtwithfairly? For thosewhohavemadeanapplication: Is iteasyforyoutomakeanapplication? APPLICATIONS, COMPLAINTSANDLEGALRIGHTS your needs? Does thelibraryhaveawideenoughrangeofmaterialstomeet For thosewhogetvisits: Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW 100% 23% 42% 55% 26% 42% 45% 32% 31% 38% 38% 77% 33% 30% 57% 45% 26% 16% 55% 30% 59% 17% 51% 39% 35% 24% 28% 58% 34% 45% 67% 59% ales Have a disability 11% 22% 61% 12% 39% 51% 11% 44% 41% 25% 23% 34% 57% 48% 16% 53% 33% 51% 17% 53% 44% 24% 24% 28% 60% 38% 53% 73% 56% 22% Do not have a disability 14% 63% 14% 52% 60% 15% 43% 54% 42% 32% 23% 39% 71% 58% 21% 63% 36% 44% 16% 55% 52% 14% 33% 42% 63% 45% 64% 80% 64% 40% 22% 5% Over 50 31% 57% 17% 38% 46% 18% 28% 40% 39% 44% 27% 32% 55% 45% 15% 52% 31% 55% 17% 52% 41% 30% 23% 26% 58% 35% 48% 69% 56% 17% 33% 23% Under 50 24% 57% 12% 29% 46% 19% 30% 38% 42% 40% 30% 32% 52% 45% 16% 49% 33% 56% 13% 45% 28% 33% 20% 22% 55% 29% 42% 66% 51% 14% 28% 27% 25 and under 30% 58% 18% 43% 48% 17% 31% 43% 38% 43% 25% 33% 59% 48% 16% 55% 31% 53% 18% 54% 47% 27% 26% 30% 60% 39% 53% 72% 59% 15% 35% 22% Over 25 15.5 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.1 14.6 14.5 14.4 14.3 14.2 14.1 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.5 16.1 15.6 – Notexperiencedanyofthesefromprisonershere EDUCATION, SKILLSANDWORK – Otherbullying/victimisation? Could youusethephoneeveryday(ifhadcredit)? – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? Could yougooutsideforexerciseeveryday? – Physicalassault? – Vocational orskillstraining? Could youshowereveryday? BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT – Threatsorintimidation? – Threatsorintimidation? SAFETY prescribed toyousincehavebeeninthisprison? Have youdevelopedaproblemwithtakingmedicationnot – Education? In thisprison,isiteasytogetintothefollowingactivities: Were youtreatedwellbysegregationstaff? For thosewhohavespentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunit thelast6months: this prisoninthelast6months? Have youspentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunit Did anyonecomeandtalktoyouaboutitafterwards? For thosewhohavebeenrestrainedinthelast6months: the last6months? Have youbeenphysicallyrestrainedbystaffinthisprison, management scheme(e.g.IEP)inthisprison? Do youfeelhavebeentreatedfairlyinthebehaviour status) encourageyoutobehavewell? Do theincentivesorrewardsinthisprison(e.g.enhanced report it? If youwerebeingbullied/victimisedbystaffhere,would – Notexperiencedanyofthesefromstaffhere – Otherbullying/victimisation? – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? – Physicalassault? – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromstaffhere: would youreportit? If youwerebeingbullied/victimisedbyotherprisonershere, – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromotherprisonershere: Do youfeelunsafenow? Have youeverfeltunsafehere? Is itvery/quiteeasytogetalcoholinthisprison? Is itvery/quiteeasytogetillicitdrugsinthisprison? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourdrugprobleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveadrugproblem: – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 38% 27% 51% 36% 62% 26% 29% 56% 31% 43% 15% 53% 57% 11% 22% 17% 35% 37% 45% 47% 22% 14% 16% 38% 33% 47% 36% 65% 33% 58% 48% 36% 4% 2% 4% 5% Have a disability 60% 13% 57% 21% 70% 14% 35% 61% 21% 25% 58% 56% 19% 11% 38% 40% 47% 62% 14% 28% 32% 28% 18% 43% 26% 43% 51% 45% 2% 7% 8% 8% 2% 9% 4% 6% Do not have a disability 49% 16% 31% 22% 71% 12% 35% 53% 13% 28% 64% 50% 13% 51% 51% 60% 72% 19% 48% 37% 18% 45% 20% 43% 59% 54% 2% 4% 3% 9% 2% 4% 1% 4% 4% 7%

Over 50 Annual 2018 Report 54% 18% 56% 26% 67% 19% 59% 27% 31% 55% 57% 20% 35% 37% 44% 55% 33% 30% 34% 25% 52% 29% 48% 49% 11% 15% 18% 11% 11% 13% 40% 33% 3% 2% 4% 6% Under 50 APPENDIX FIVE 59% 14% 52% 25% 64% 20% 59% 31% 27% 50% 50% 20% 25% 32% 39% 50% 37% 24% 29% 24% 50% 23% 37% 39% 25% 17% 16% 12% 17% 31% 30% 2% 8% 3% 4% 5%

– 25 and under 19 51% 19% 57% 26% 70% 18% 59% 23% 32% 58% 61% 19% 41% 41% 49% 59% 29% 36% 36% 24% 51% 29% 51% 52% 10% 10% 16% 10% 45% 34% 3% 2% 7% 9% 4% 6%

113 Over 25 APPENDIX FIVE 114 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.1 17.4 17.3 17.2 17.1 16.3 16.2 PREPARATION FORRELEASE – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? For thosewhohavedonethefollowing,didtheyhelpyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets: – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Socialcaresupport? – Health/mentalhealthsupport? – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Do youneedhelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased: Is anybodyhelpingyoutoprepareforyourrelease? release address? Is thisprisonvery/quiteneartoyourhomeareaorintended For thosewhoexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months: Do youexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? In thisprison,haveyoudone: Are staffhelpingyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets? objectives ortargets? Do youunderstandwhatneedtodoachieveyour For thosewhohaveacustodyplan: Do youhaveacustodyplan? PLANNING ANDPROGRESSION Do staffencourageyoutoattendeducation,trainingorwork? – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Education? For thosewhohavedonethefollowingactivities,doyouthinktheywillhelponrelease: – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Education? In thisprison,haveyoudonethefollowingactivities: – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandW 57% 54% 68% 65% 69% 20% 24% 55% 78% 62% 67% 80% 56% 65% 78% 55% 49% 29% 44% 48% 51% 42% 78% 45% 49% 58% 54% 42% 59% 58% 35% 36% 75% 62% 74% 52% ales Have a disability 69% 49% 67% 68% 73% 21% 18% 30% 34% 48% 56% 44% 58% 52% 49% 48% 23% 34% 42% 49% 49% 85% 52% 54% 62% 55% 40% 65% 61% 31% 33% 79% 64% 78% 30% 24% Do not have a disability 82% 57% 72% 70% 72% 26% 15% 27% 41% 29% 47% 62% 25% 42% 55% 50% 52% 18% 41% 47% 58% 86% 52% 58% 57% 48% 40% 55% 54% 23% 26% 77% 58% 75% 30% 28% Over 50 63% 50% 67% 66% 72% 20% 20% 38% 50% 47% 57% 66% 51% 63% 63% 52% 48% 26% 44% 50% 45% 82% 49% 51% 61% 55% 41% 64% 61% 34% 35% 78% 64% 77% 39% 37% Under 50 38% 47% 63% 60% 64% 14% 21% 38% 45% 35% 57% 60% 54% 63% 61% 49% 45% 26% 40% 44% 33% 78% 48% 48% 62% 56% 41% 62% 60% 36% 36% 73% 63% 79% 31% 34% 25 and under 72% 52% 69% 69% 74% 23% 19% 36% 51% 49% 55% 68% 46% 60% 62% 52% 49% 24% 45% 51% 51% 84% 50% 54% 60% 54% 40% 64% 60% 31% 33% 79% 64% 76% 41% 37% Over 25 20.1 18.4 FINAL QUESTIONABOUTTHISPRISON – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? – Socialcaresupport? – Health/mentalhealthsupport? – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Are yougettinghelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased,ifneedit: likely tooffendinthefuture? Do youthinkyourexperiencesinthisprisonhavemadeless HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 29% 19% 30% 44% 21% 26% 17% 20% 33% 48% Have a disability 31% 22% 27% 47% 19% 24% 22% 25% 35% 52% Do not have a disability 35% 31% 40% 47% 20% 27% 15% 30% 59% 8%

Over 50 Annual 2018 Report 30% 19% 27% 45% 20% 25% 20% 23% 34% 49% Under 50 APPENDIX FIVE 40% 25% 29% 40% 22% 20% 23% 24% 33% 47%

– 25 and under 19 28% 18% 28% 46% 19% 27% 18% 22% 34% 52%

115 Over 25 APPENDIX SIX

Prisoner survey responses: men and women Men’s Men’s prisons prisons Women’s Women’s

Number of completed questionnaires returned 5,990 458 DEMOGRAPHICS AND OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.2 Are you under 21 years of age? 7% 2% Are you 25 years of age or younger? 25% 14% Are you 50 years of age or older? 14% 16% Are you 70 years of age or older? 1% 0% 1.3 Are you from a minority ethnic group? 31% 15% 1.4 Have you been in this prison for less than 6 months? 43% 38% 1.5 Are you currently serving a sentence? 88% 92% Are you on recall? 9% 7% 1.6 Is your sentence less than 12 months? 11% 18% Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)? 3% 3% 7.1 Are you Muslim? 17% 4% 11.3 Do you have any mental health problems? 43% 67% 12.1 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 34% 40% 19.1 Do you have any children under the age of 18? 50% 57% 19.2 Are you a foreign national? 10% 5% 19.3 Are you from a traveller community (e.g. Gypsy, Roma, Irish Traveller)? 5% 6% 19.4 Have you ever been in the armed services? 7% 2% 19.5 Is your gender female or non-binary? 19.6 Are you homosexual, bisexual or other sexual orientation? 4% 27% 19.7 Do you identify as transgender or transsexual? 2% 1% ARRIVAL AND RECEPTION 2.1 Were you given up-to-date information about this prison before you came here? 17% 18% 2.2 When you arrived at this prison, did you spend less than 2 hours in reception? 44% 59% 2.3 When you were searched in reception, was this done in a respectful way? 80% 87% 2.4 Overall, were you treated very / quite well in reception? 80% 87% 2.5 When you first arrived, did you have any problems? 76% 88%

In this table summary statistics from all adult prisoners surveyed in the annual report year 2018–2019 (1 April 2018 – 31 March 2019) are presented.

The comparator compares the responses of prisoners in male and female establishments.

Shading is used to indicate statistical significance*, as follows:

Green shading shows results that are significantly more positive than the comparator Blue shading shows results that are significantly more negative than the comparator Orange shading shows significant differences in demographics and background information No shading means that differences are not significant and may have occurred by chance Grey shading indicates that we have no valid data for this question * Less than 1% probability that the difference is due to chance.

116 Annual Report 2018–19 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales 2.5 4.1 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.6 5.3 5.2 5.1 4.4 4.3 4.2 Does theshop/canteensellthings thatyouneed? Do yougetenoughtoeatatmeal-times always/mostofthetime? Is thequalityoffoodinthisprison very/quitegood? FOOD ANDCANTEEN Are thecommunal/sharedareasof yourwingorhouseblocknormallyvery/quiteclean? – Canyougetyourstoredpropertyifneedit? – Isitnormallyquietenoughforyoutorelaxorsleepatnight? – Doyougetcellcleaningmaterialseveryweek? – Doyouhavecleansheetseveryweek? – Canyoushowereveryday? – Doyounormallyhaveenoughclean,suitableclothesfortheweek? On thewingorhouseblockyoucurrentlyliveon: Is yourcellcallbellnormallyansweredwithin5minutes? Are youinacellonyourown? ON THEWING Did yourinductioncovereverythingyouneededtoknowaboutthisprison? For thosewhohavehadaninduction: Have youhadaninductionatthisprison? – NumbersputonyourPINphone? – FreePINphonecredit? – Accesstotheprisonshop/canteen? In yourfirstfewdayshere,didyouget: Did youfeelsafeonyourfirstnighthere? On yourfirstnightinthisprison,wascellvery/quiteclean? – Noneofthese? – Supportfromanotherprisoner(e.g.Insiderorbuddy)? – ThechancetotalkaListenerorSamaritans? – Thechancetoseesomeonefromhealthcare? – Somethingtoeat? – Afreephonecall? – Ashower? – Toiletries /otherbasicitems? – Tobacco ornicotinereplacement? Before youwerelockeduponyourfirstnight,offered: FIRST NIGHTANDINDUCTION Did staffhelpyoutodealwiththeseproblems? For thosewhohadanyproblemswhentheyfirstarrived: – Lostordelayedproperty? – Needingprotectionfromotherprisoners? – Gettingmedication? – Drugsoralcohol(e.g.withdrawal)? – Physicalhealthproblems? – Othermentalhealthproblems? – Feelingsuicidal? – Feelingdepressed? – Housingworries? – Moneyworries? – Contactingemployers? – Arrangingcareforchildrenorotherdependents? – Contactingfamily? – Gettingphonenumbers? Did youhaveproblemswith: HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales

Annual 2018 Report APPENDIX SIX 58% 35% 39% 58% 25% 62% 56% 67% 85% 65% 23% 59% 53% 90% 42% 49% 38% 69% 37% 22% 25% 59% 74% 46% 37% 51% 66% 32% 22% 22% 14% 15% 22% 12% 35% 15% 20% 34% 33% 7% 8% 4% 3% Men’s –

19 prisons 65% 46% 47% 74% 35% 69% 80% 94% 94% 80% 30% 62% 54% 89% 46% 54% 25% 69% 54% 28% 36% 69% 81% 70% 46% 62% 69% 44% 16% 44% 32% 22% 39% 20% 55% 25% 26% 29% 29% 4% 5% 3% 5% Women’s 117 prisons APPENDIX SIX 118 10.5 10.4 10.3 10.2 10.1 9.9 9.8 9.7 9.6 9.5 9.4 9.3 9.2 9.1 9.1 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 6.7 6.6 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.1 For thosewhoneedit,isiteasyto: Have youeverbeenpreventedfrom makingacomplaintherewhenyouwantedto? Are complaintsusuallydealtwithwithin 7days? Are complaintsusuallydealtwithfairly? For thosewhohavemadeacomplaint: Is iteasyforyoutomakeacomplaint? Are applicationsusuallydealtwithwithin7days? Are applicationsusuallydealtwithfairly? For thosewhohavemadeanapplication: Is iteasyforyoutomakeanapplication? APPLICATIONS, COMPLAINTSANDLEGALRIGHTS Does thelibraryhaveawideenoughrangeofmaterialstomeetyourneeds? For thosewhogetvisits: Do youtypicallygotothelibraryonceaweekormore? Do youtypicallygotothegymtwiceaweekormore? Could yougooutsideforexercisemorethan5daysinatypicalweek,ifwantedto? Do yougetassociationmorethan5daysinatypicalweek,ifwantit? Do youhavetimetododomesticsmorethan5daysinatypicalweek? Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellonatypicalSaturdaySunday? Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellonatypicalSaturdayorSunday? Do youusuallyspend10hoursormoreoutofyourcellonatypicalweekday? Do youusuallyspendlessthan2hoursoutofyourcellonatypicalweekday? Are thesetimesusuallykeptto? For thosewhoknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposedtobe: Do youknowwhattheunlockandlock-uptimesaresupposedtobehere? TIME OUTOFCELL Are yourvisitorsusuallytreatedrespectfullybystaff? Do visitsusuallystartandfinishontime? For thosewhogetvisits: Do yougetvisitsfromfamily/friendsonceaweekormore? Is itvery/quiteeasyforyourfamilyandfriendstogethere? Are youabletouseaphoneeveryday(ifhavecredit)? Have youhadanyproblemswithsendingorreceivingmail(lettersparcels)? Have staffhereencouragedyoutokeepintouchwithyourfamily/friends? CONTACT WITHFAMILY ANDFRIENDS Are youabletoattendreligiousservices,ifwantto? Are youabletospeakaChaplainofyourfaithinprivate,ifwantto? Are yourreligiousbeliefsrespectedhere? For thosewhohaveareligion: Do youhaveareligion? FAITH If so,dothingssometimeschange? Are prisonershereconsultedaboutthingslikefood,canteen,healthcareorwingissues? Do youfeelthataretreatedasanindividualinthisprison? Do youregularlyseeprisongovernors,directorsorseniormanagerstalkingtoprisoners? Is yourpersonalornamedofficervery/quitehelpful? For thosewhohaveapersonalofficer: Do youhaveapersonalofficer? In thelastweek,hasanymemberofstafftalkedtoyouabouthowaregettingon? Are thereanystaffhereyoucouldturntoifhadaproblem? Do moststaffheretreatyouwithrespect? RELATIONSHIPS WITHSTAFF Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 28% 24% 28% 59% 37% 50% 71% 57% 47% 46% 60% 59% 53% 32% 10% 24% 57% 88% 73% 47% 19% 38% 86% 55% 28% 86% 69% 68% 70% 32% 47% 42% 46% 72% 30% 69% 68% 5% 8% Men’s prisons 34% 26% 33% 58% 45% 63% 80% 64% 49% 30% 36% 62% 67% 15% 16% 23% 70% 96% 83% 58% 20% 42% 91% 47% 45% 91% 88% 80% 69% 38% 64% 49% 14% 56% 88% 39% 80% 75% 8% Women’s prisons 10.6 13.7 13.6 13.5 13.4 13.3 13.2 13.1 12.5 12.4 12.3 12.2 12.1 11.5 11.4 11.3 11.2 11.1 10.7 14.4 14.3 14.2 14.1 13.8 If youwerebeingbullied/victimised byotherprisonershere,wouldyoureportit? – Notexperiencedanyofthesefrom prisonershere – Otherbullying/victimisation? – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? – Physicalassault? – Threatsorintimidation? – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromotherprisonershere: Do youfeelunsafenow? Have youeverfeltunsafehere? SAFETY Is itvery/quiteeasytogetalcoholinthisprison? Is itvery/quiteeasytogetillicitdrugsinthisprison? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourdrugprobleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveadrugproblem: in thisprison? Have youdevelopedaproblemwithtakingmedicationnotprescribedtosincehavebeen Have youdevelopedaproblemwithillicitdrugssincehavebeeninthisprison? not prescribedtoyou)? Did youhaveadrugproblemwhencameintothisprison(includingillicitdrugsandmedication Have youbeenhelpedwithyouralcoholprobleminthisprison? For thosewhohad/haveanalcoholproblem: Did youhaveanalcoholproblemwhencameintothisprison? ALCOHOL ANDDRUGS Is itvery/quiteeasyforyoutospeakaListenerifneedto? Did youfeelcaredforbystaff? For thosewhohavebeenonanACCT: Have youbeenonanACCTinthisprison? Are yougettingthesupportneed? For thosewhohaveadisability: Do youconsideryourselftohaveadisability? OTHER SUPPORTNEEDS Do youthinktheoverallqualityofhealthserviceshereisvery/quitegood? Have youbeenhelpedwithyourmentalhealthproblemsinthisprison? For thosewhohavementalhealthproblems: Do youhaveanymentalhealthproblems? – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Do youthinkthequalityofhealthserviceisvery/quitegoodfrom: – Mentalhealthworkers? – Dentist? – Nurse? – Doctor? Is itvery/quiteeasytosee: HEALTH CARE present? Have staffhereeveropenedlettersfromyoursolicitororlegalrepresentativewhenyouwerenot For thosewhohavehadlegalletters: Get bailinformation? Attend legalvisits? Communicate withyoursolicitororlegalrepresentative? HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales

Annual 2018 Report APPENDIX SIX 33% 53% 18% 26% 18% 31% 34% 24% 51% 28% 48% 49% 10% 15% 28% 58% 17% 40% 47% 18% 31% 34% 42% 39% 43% 27% 33% 57% 47% 23% 16% 54% 32% 54% 17% 52% 43% 2% Men’s –

19 prisons 48% 43% 24% 24% 11% 35% 43% 18% 52% 45% 67% 12% 13% 42% 73% 24% 50% 55% 41% 35% 40% 40% 58% 67% 45% 39% 55% 39% 30% 17% 52% 22% 52% 25% 61% 47% 2% 9% Women’s 119 prisons APPENDIX SIX 120 17.4 17.3 17.2 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1 15.6 15.5 15.4 15.3 15.2 15.1 14.6 14.5 – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? In thisprison,haveyoudone: Are staffhelpingyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets? Do youunderstandwhatneedtodoachieveyourobjectivesor targets? For thosewhohaveacustodyplan: Do youhaveacustodyplan? PLANNING ANDPROGRESSION Do staffencourageyoutoattendeducation,trainingorwork? – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Education? For thosewhohavedonethefollowingactivities,doyouthinktheywillhelponrelease: – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Education? In thisprison,haveyoudonethefollowingactivities: – Paidworkoutsideoftheprison? – Voluntary workoutsideoftheprison? – Prisonjob? – Vocational orskillstraining? – Education? In thisprison,isiteasytogetintothefollowingactivities: EDUCATION, SKILLSANDWORK Could youusethephoneeveryday(ifhadcredit)? Could yougooutsideforexerciseeveryday? Could youshowereveryday? Were youtreatedwellbysegregationstaff? For thosewhohavespentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunitlast6months: Have youspentoneormorenightsinthesegregationunitthisprisonlast6months? Did anyonecomeandtalktoyouaboutitafterwards? For thosewhohavebeenrestrainedinthelast6months: Have youbeenphysicallyrestrainedbystaffinthisprison,thelast6months? Do youfeelhavebeentreatedfairlyinthebehaviourmanagementscheme(e.g.IEP)thisprison? Do theincentivesorrewardsinthisprison(e.g.enhancedstatus)encourageyoutobehavewell? BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT If youwerebeingbullied/victimisedbystaffhere,wouldreportit? – Notexperiencedanyofthesefromstaffhere – Otherbullying/victimisation? – Theftofcanteenorproperty? – Sexualassault? – Physicalassault? – Threatsorintimidation? – Verbal abuse? Have youexperiencedanyofthefollowingfromstaffhere: Annual 2018 Report – 19

HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales 46% 21% 20% 37% 44% 50% 83% 50% 52% 61% 54% 40% 63% 60% 33% 34% 78% 64% 77% 42% 33% 56% 54% 67% 58% 56% 20% 13% 37% 39% 46% 57% 17% 10% 12% 25% 31% 4% 6% 9% 2% Men’s prisons 61% 20% 25% 55% 64% 60% 86% 68% 76% 72% 69% 59% 75% 75% 32% 31% 87% 74% 88% 64% 49% 73% 58% 62% 69% 65% 22% 44% 45% 55% 59% 16% 23% 26% 8% 8% 7% 1% 4% 4% 3% Women’s prisons 20.1 18.4 18.4 18.3 18.2 18.1 Do youthinkyourexperiencesinthisprisonhavemadelesslikelytooffendthefuture? FINAL QUESTIONABOUTTHISPRISON – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? – Socialcaresupport? – Health/mentalhealthsupport? – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Are yougettinghelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased,ifneedit: – Gettingbackintouchwithfamilyorfriends? – Socialcaresupport? – Health/mentalhealthsupport? – Supportfordrugoralcoholproblems? – Sortingoutfinances? – Arrangingbenefits? – Settingupeducationortraining? – Gettingemployment? – Findingaccommodation? Do youneedhelptosortoutthefollowingforwhenarereleased: Is anybodyhelpingyoutoprepareforyourrelease? Is thisprisonvery/quiteneartoyourhomeareaorintendedreleaseaddress? For thosewhoexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months: Do youexpecttobereleasedinthenext3months? PREPARATION FORRELEASE – ROTL-dayorovernightrelease? – Beenonaspecialistunit? – Onetoonework? – Otherprogrammes? – Offendingbehaviourprogrammes? For thosewhohavedonethefollowing,didtheyhelpyoutoachieveyourobjectivesortargets: HM Chief Inspector ofPrisons forEnglandandWales

Annual 2018 Report APPENDIX SIX 51% 30% 19% 28% 45% 20% 25% 20% 23% 34% 39% 37% 50% 45% 56% 66% 49% 61% 62% 51% 48% 25% 66% 50% 67% 67% 72% Men’s –

19 prisons 65% 45% 30% 52% 66% 30% 46% 21% 27% 47% 44% 40% 58% 60% 65% 75% 51% 64% 66% 80% 43% 28% 75% 67% 83% 83% 85% Women’s 121 prisons

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 3rd floor 10 South Colonnade Canary Wharf London E14 4PU Telephone: 020 7340 0500 Press enquiries: 020 3334 0357 General enquiries: [email protected] Chief Inspector of Prisons Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM

CCS0619502094 978-1-5286-1459-7